Two responses to my earlier email have left me puzzled. While I admit it not the best thing I have ever written, I can't help but feel that I have somehow been misunderstood.
From Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com
I'm not trying to get into a political argument here, but I would like to note my objection to the above assumptions in the strongest possible terms. I believe they are:
- historically untrue,
- (on balance) also absurdly false as regards the present,
- anachronistically missionaristic and
- the positive aspects favoured in this paragraph are the very
ANTITHESIS of how occidental civilization has historically conducted and continues to conduct itself.
You have your opinion, & I have mine. There is a great deal in the history of Western Civilization that is offensive & shameful -- but I believe that there are some things worthy of praise. If you cannot accept that there is at least one or two redeeming things to Western Civilization, then I don't know what I could say that you'd care to hear.
And because it seems to be a point of anger here, let me explain _precisely_ what I mean by the term "Western Civilization": it is the common heritage of Europe, the Americas, Australia & New Zealand. One tradition that can be found amongst all of these people is the struggle towards tolerance, pluralism, & unfetered speech; I am unaware of any serious argument that this tradition of thought was introduced from Africa, India, or China.
And from my long reading of history, I know that Western Civilization hardly has a monopoly on violence, oppression, ignorance & hatred.
And Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
Bah! If I don't recognize the contributor -- or even more clearly, if that person is editting from an IP number -- I'll just consider her/him/it a troublemaker, list the articles that person produces on VfD & revert all of her/his/its edits as "vandalism".
So who the hell do you think you are???
My above passage is an example of a rhetorical technique known as irony. Unfortunately tone of voice does not always successfully transmit across the Internet for some reason, & obviously it failed in this case. I apologize for that failure here.
And if I may allowed to be chauvanistic for a moment, I think this ideal is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to be taught to the rest of the world. We should respect other people's POV, we should be willing to explain our own POV, & that there should be a fair & beneficial exchange between them
*groan* spare us your offensive ethnocentric colonialist views, please.
I assume that you, too, misunderstood what I meant by "Western Civilization". If not, then I am puzzled why you reject an ideal that the land you appear to be writing from -- the United Kingdom -- has struggled to promote. While the struggle may not have always been praiseworthy, orderly, or even successful, many people in that land have worked to perpetuate the ideal I talked about.
If you inadvertently thought that by "Western Civilization", I merely meant the United States of America, I think I may understand part of your reaction, but I still am left with one question. If there is nothing good that comes from the United States, then why do you bother to contribute to Wikipedia, which is a creation of the US?
A positive purchase maybe: Lies My Teacher Told Me:Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html
A book for everyone of the American Empire.
Sorry, but my reading time is currently spent on teaching myself the immense amount of knowledge that was not covered -- if even alluded to -- in my school years.
While I should appreciate your concern for my educational backgruond, I find myself somewhat upset that you made sweeping assumptions about what I learned in school. From what I've since come to know, my education differed in many respects from other people that I have known. I won't bore you with all of the details, but I consider myself substantially self-taught despite my college degree, & still unfinished.
And in reference to your comment about "the American Empire", not everyone in the US agrees with the views of the current President: a majority of voters cast ballots for his opponent in the last election, & I would be surprised if he received as many votes in this coming election. The US has been far more conflicted -- if not schizophrenic -- about the its imperial role than other nations.
Wow. All of this verbage just because I tried to express (& again, I admit I did so badly) the hope that despite all of the crimes, objectionable behavior & just plain shit that has been done, it would nice if there was one positive ideal we in the west could pass on to not only the rest of the world, but also those who come after us. And the means this could be passed on is thru how we run Wikipedia. I guess I've learned that this ideal of pluralism, tolerance, & mutual respect isn't even that strongly held within the Wikipedia community.
Geoff
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 06:18:26 UTC, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
A positive purchase maybe: Lies My Teacher Told Me:Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html
A book for everyone of the American Empire.
Sorry, but my reading time is currently spent on teaching myself the immense amount of knowledge that was not covered -- if even alluded to -- in my school years.
A good book, though. If you didn't already know the low reliability of US history as it's taught in US schools, it would be worth reading. But then, surely *all* the people on this list know the ppor quality of the history that's taught in *their own country's* schools. I would not for a moment suggest that the only people who understand that are (a subset of) Americans.
On 27 Aug 2004, at 7:18 am, Geoff Burling wrote:
My above passage is an example of a rhetorical technique known as irony. Unfortunately tone of voice does not always successfully transmit across the Internet for some reason, & obviously it failed in this case. I apologize for that failure here.
Well actually, I'm guilty, I apologise. I must admit, however, it was after first reading the end of your message, at which point I had already developed a low opinion of you, that I read this passage and simply jumped to conclusions. (more on that in my next email)
On the other hand, not being in front of each other is not usually the problem with irony via email it seems to me. It's just that people often try to use irony when the truth of the matter is already staring you in the face, which is not usually an effective time to use irony.
Christiaan
User:Michael, a hard-banned user, has returned as [[User:Mike Garica]], claiming that he has been unbanned. Jimbo replied on the User page that no, he has not been unbanned, but when anyone tries to reban him, Guanaco is unbanning him. Please revoke Guanaco's sysop privileges until he agrees to stop doing this without discussion. In the meantime, I have deleted/reverted all of Mike Garcia's additions to Wikipedia.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or two and then just pick up the pieces.
HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
-Matt (User:Morven)
Guanaco is now currently in the process of restoring, without a single word of discussion, the items I deleted which Michael created without authorization.
RickK
Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote: I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or two and then just pick up the pieces.
HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
-Matt (User:Morven) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Matt Brown wrote:
I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or two and then just pick up the pieces.
HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
-Matt (User:Morven)
I am not unilaterally unblocking him, but I am not prohibited from doing so. My decision to unblock Michael's accounts is supported by both Danny and Theresa Knott and falls within the "in other appropriate cases" guideline for unblocking. The blocks do nothing to prevent him from logging out, creating a new account, and then editing a different page. He can be blocked on sight, but it is clear that he shouldn't.
--Guanaco
Guanaco listed me on Vandalism in Progress for reverting Mike Garcia's additions: RickK (User:RickK | talk | contributions)
Intentionally reverting edits to factually inaccurate versions. Guanaco 02:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco needs to be dealt with, and my Request for Comment was ignored, so what is my next step? The arbitration process will do no good, since it will take three or four months to get any thing done, and I don't expect anything profitable to be done anyway, and in that long period of time, Guanaco will have allowed and encouraged Michael to post all kinds of stuff (he had three pages of postings in the last three days), in direct violation of Jimbo's hard ban.
RickK
Guanaco guanaco@cox.net wrote: Matt Brown wrote:
I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or two and then just pick up the pieces.
HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
-Matt (User:Morven)
I am not unilaterally unblocking him, but I am not prohibited from doing so. My decision to unblock Michael's accounts is supported by both Danny and Theresa Knott and falls within the "in other appropriate cases" guideline for unblocking. The blocks do nothing to prevent him from logging out, creating a new account, and then editing a different page. He can be blocked on sight, but it is clear that he shouldn't.
--Guanaco
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
That the arbitration committee could do nothing quickly is false, provided a real emergency exists. What is striking is that Jimbo is not weighing in, but perhaps he is on a brief vacation.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:20:58 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User:Michael/User:Mike Garcia
Guanaco needs to be dealt with, and my Request for Comment was ignored, so what is my next step? The arbitration process will do no good, since it will take three or four months to get any thing done, and I don't expect anything profitable to be done anyway, and in that long period of time, Guanaco will have allowed and encouraged Michael to post all kinds of stuff (he had three pages of postings in the last three days), in direct violation of Jimbo's hard ban.
RickK
On the page [[User:Mike Garcia]] this question is answered,
"==Note from Jimbo==
This user is not unbanned. I have no idea why he says that he is unbanned.
All that is happening is that he and I are talking. [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 20:51, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)"
Fred
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 05:46:25 -0600 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User:Michael/User:Mike Garcia
What is striking is that Jimbo is not weighing in, but perhaps he is on a brief vacation.
I have a suggestion if ever one doesn't mind...I have spoke to Mike off site and he told he will seriously try to be a good boy. I think that arb committee should at least grant mike Parole and if in certain amount of time he doesn't edit in good faith perma-block him. I seriously have faith in Mike as a person, and I have faith that the arb committee and jimbo could grant him some Clemency. Thank you
User:Plato
Guanaco guanaco@cox.net wrote: Matt Brown wrote:
I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or two and then just pick up the pieces.
HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
-Matt (User:Morven)
I am not unilaterally unblocking him, but I am not prohibited from doing so. My decision to unblock Michael's accounts is supported by both Danny and Theresa Knott and falls within the "in other appropriate cases" guideline for unblocking. The blocks do nothing to prevent him from logging out, creating a new account, and then editing a different page. He can be blocked on sight, but it is clear that he shouldn't.
--Guanaco
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
But he's posting without having been given that parole by either Jimbo or the arbcom. Until such a time, he should not be allowed to post. And I still think he needs to apologize to Hephaestos and Zoe.
RickK
"N.T. Riche" vonriche@yahoo.com wrote: I have a suggestion if ever one doesn't mind...I have spoke to Mike off site and he told he will seriously try to be a good boy. I think that arb committee should at least grant mike Parole and if in certain amount of time he doesn't edit in good faith perma-block him. I seriously have faith in Mike as a person, and I have faith that the arb committee and jimbo could grant him some Clemency. Thank you
User:Plato
Guanaco wrote: Matt Brown wrote:
I am troubled by User:Guanaco's behavior here.
He does have a valid point that banning Michael seems to not work. He only comes back with new accounts or edits via IP, and does the same thing. It may indeed be easier to "contain" him to a known account or two and then just pick up the pieces.
HOWEVER, I don't think it's Guanaco's place to unilaterally decide that this should be our new policy. He is still officially banned and bannable on sight. If we want to alter this decision, let's discuss it in a place of record (here, or on Wikipedia).
-Matt (User:Morven)
I am not unilaterally unblocking him, but I am not prohibited from doing so. My decision to unblock Michael's accounts is supported by both Danny and Theresa Knott and falls within the "in other appropriate cases" guideline for unblocking. The blocks do nothing to prevent him from logging out, creating a new account, and then editing a different page. He can be blocked on sight, but it is clear that he shouldn't.
--Guanaco
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
What do you think of the arguement that blocking Michael blocks AOL users?
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:41:14 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User:Michael/User:Mike Garcia
But he's posting without having been given that parole by either Jimbo or the arbcom. Until such a time, he should not be allowed to post. And I still think he needs to apologize to Hephaestos and Zoe.
RickK
On 27 Aug 2004, at 7:18 am, Geoff Burling wrote:
And if I may allowed to be chauvanistic for a moment, I think this ideal is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to be taught to the rest of the world. We should respect other people's POV, we should be willing to explain our own POV, & that there should be a fair & beneficial exchange between them
*groan* spare us your offensive ethnocentric colonialist views, please.
I assume that you, too, misunderstood what I meant by "Western Civilization".
No, and you see, here's the irony, you're suggesting that "Western Civilisation," a culture that has butchered millions upon millions warring amongst itself and against other cultures over the centuries, and forcing its own point of view on others, has some kind of mortgage on POV-tolerance and needs to "teach" this concept to "the rest of world." I couldn't think of many clearer examples of irony.
If not, then I am puzzled why you reject an ideal that the land you appear to be writing from -- the United Kingdom -- has struggled to promote. While the struggle may not have always been praiseworthy, orderly, or even successful, many people in that land have worked to perpetuate the ideal I talked about.
"Tolerant imperialists". The irony thickens.
I do not reject the idea of tolerance. I find it ironic and offensive, especially in regard to all the cultures and people who have died and suffered at the hands of Western "Civilisation," that you suggest we have some kind of mortgage on it and should "teach" it to the "rest of the world."
If you inadvertently thought that by "Western Civilization", I merely meant the United States of America ...
No, I didn't think that.
A positive purchase maybe: Lies My Teacher Told Me:Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html
A book for everyone of the American Empire.
Sorry, but my reading time is currently spent on teaching myself the immense amount of knowledge that was not covered -- if even alluded to -- in my school years.
Which is exactly what the book covers. Really it's a good book, don't be put off by my polemic.
While I should appreciate your concern for my educational backgruond, I find myself somewhat upset that you made sweeping assumptions about what I learned in school.
Well I made no such sweeping assumption about your schooling so you needn't be upset. I made a judgment about your entire upbringing based on your ethnocentric point of view.
And in reference to your comment about "the American Empire", not everyone in the US agrees with the views of the current President: a majority of voters cast ballots for his opponent in the last election, & I would be surprised if he received as many votes in this coming election. The US has been far more conflicted -- if not schizophrenic -- about the its imperial role than other nations.
My comment wasn't a slur on America, it was a slur on Western culture (which is influenced in no small part by White/European American culture); a culture that is currently intolerant in the extreme of any other group that does not conform to a model of capitalist "free" markets and power-elite government by propaganda.
Wow. All of this verbage just because I tried to express (& again, I admit I did so badly) the hope that despite all of the crimes, objectionable behavior & just plain shit that has been done, it would nice if there was one positive ideal we in the west could pass on to not only the rest of the world, but also those who come after us.
Well I have a suggestion. Stop thinking you have something to "teach" people and allow others to make such a judgment for themselves. It's something you might have learnt from American Indian culture had it not been almost completely wiped out. And here's another irony I guess. American Indian culture is probably where America's more democratic traditions evolved from, not Western culture.
... let me explain _precisely_ what I mean by the term "Western Civilization": it is the common heritage of Europe, the Americas, Australia & New Zealand. One tradition that can be found amongst all of these people is the struggle towards tolerance, pluralism, & unfetered speech; I am unaware of any serious argument that this tradition of thought was introduced from Africa, India, or China.
Western culture has many traditions but anarchism really isn't one of its most prevalent. It has spent most of its existence denying and squashing it. I'm a white New Zealander and the spreading of anarchy was certainly not one of the traits of my ancestors when many of them turned up in Aotearoa to steal from the Maoris.
As John Mohawk has argued, in regard to America for example, American Indians are directly or indirectly responsible for the public-meeting tradition, free speech, democracy, and "all those things which got attached to the Bill of Rights." Without the Native example, "do you really believe that all those ideas would have found birth among people who had spent a millennium butchering other people because of intolerance of questions of religion?"
In fact it was the lack of hierarchy in the Native societies in the eastern United States that attracted so many Europeans into defecting to Native societies. According to Benjamin Franklin, "All their government is by Counsel of the Sages. There is no Force; there are no Prisons, no officers to compel Obedience, or inflict Punishment." Although leadership was substantially hereditary in some nations, most Indian societies north of Mexico were much more democratic than Spain, France, or even England in the seventeenth century and eighteenth centuries.
After Col. Henry Bouquet defeated the Ohio Indians at Bushy Run in 1763, he demanded the release of all white captives. Most of them, especially the children, had to be "bound hand and foot" and forcibly returned to white society. Meanwhile the Native prisoners, "went back to their defeated relations with great signs of joy," in the words of the anthropologist Frederick Turner (in Beyond Geography, 245). Unsurprisingly Turner calls these scenes "infamous and embarrassing."
Cheers, in peace, Christiaan
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
As John Mohawk has argued, in regard to America for example, American Indians are directly or indirectly responsible for the public-meeting tradition, free speech, democracy, and "all those things which got attached to the Bill of Rights." Without the Native example, "do you really believe that all those ideas would have found birth among people who had spent a millennium butchering other people because of intolerance of questions of religion?"
Um, some guy claiming this doesn't make it an undisputed fact. Europeans had a lot of misconceptions about Native American society, both positive and negative; some of these were not fully understood until the scientific development of anthropology in the 20th century. An educated white American of the 18th century was more familiar with the doings of the ancient Athenian boule than with the society living on the other side of the hill outside his door; Ben Franklin's admiration of the natives was considered just another one of his charming eccentricities.
Reflexive condemnation of Western civilization is no more rational than uncritical praise.
Stan
On 27 Aug 2004, at 9:55 pm, Stan Shebs wrote:
Um, some guy claiming this doesn't make it an undisputed fact.
Um, I know, that's why I said "he argued."
Reflexive condemnation of Western civilization is no more rational than uncritical praise.
Well, luckily for me, my response was nether reflexive nor condemning of Western culture.
Christiaan
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 9:55 pm, Stan Shebs wrote:
Um, some guy claiming this doesn't make it an undisputed fact.
Um, I know, that's why I said "he argued."
You gave yourself away when you repeated it all uncritically...
Reflexive condemnation of Western civilization is no more rational than uncritical praise.
Well, luckily for me, my response was nether reflexive nor condemning of Western culture.
Trotting out the "millions of deaths" argument is a standard tactic for blanket condemnation; we're supposed to be so horrified and guilt-ridden that we'll just go along with whatever is said next.
To borrow from politics, instead of doing negative attacks on the competition, why not just stick to the advantages of your approach? This all started with the comment (I paraphrase) that principles of Western civilization are a better guide for encyclopedizing; if that's not true, let's see a sample article developed according to the principles of Islamic or Hindu civilization. Dunno about other people, but I'm tremendously curious about how that would go.
Stan
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:30 pm, Stan Shebs wrote:
Trotting out the "millions of deaths" argument is a standard tactic for blanket condemnation; we're supposed to be so horrified and guilt-ridden that we'll just go along with whatever is said next.
Actually it was a juxtaposition, to point out the absurdity in which a culture with such a record might have a mortgage on the concept of tolerance.
This all started with the comment (I paraphrase) that principles of Western civilization are a better guide for encyclopedizing;
I believe it started with the comment we "need" to "teach" "the rest of the world" the value of something. Such thought is the basis of many justifications for imperialism. Something I find abhorrent.
Christiaan
Geoff Burling wrote:
And Christiaan Briggs wrote:
Bah! If I don't recognize the contributor -- or even more clearly, if that person is editting from an IP number -- I'll just consider her/him/it a troublemaker, list the articles that person produces on VfD & revert all of her/his/its edits as "vandalism".
So who the hell do you think you are???
My above passage is an example of a rhetorical technique known as irony. Unfortunately tone of voice does not always successfully transmit across the Internet for some reason, & obviously it failed in this case. I apologize for that failure here.
I hope that in my own response to that message reflected that I did detect the irony. I often use it myself, and can sympathize when I see it misunderstood in someone else's writing. Quoting that passage out of context made it seem far more serious. I actively resisted the temptation to respond to Christiaan, because I felt it would be a futile gesture.
And if I may allowed to be chauvanistic for a moment, I think this ideal is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to be taught to the rest of the world. We should respect other people's POV, we should be willing to explain our own POV, & that there should be a fair & beneficial exchange between them
*groan* spare us your offensive ethnocentric colonialist views, please.
I assume that you, too, misunderstood what I meant by "Western Civilization". If not, then I am puzzled why you reject an ideal that the land you appear to be writing from -- the United Kingdom -- has struggled to promote. While the struggle may not have always been praiseworthy, orderly, or even successful, many people in that land have worked to perpetuate the ideal I talked about.
Western Civilization to me really relates to Western Europe plus key members of its former colonial empires. It does promote certain ideals, but that does not mean that it has been uniformly successful in implementing those ideals. This distinction is difficult for the person who has not yet grasped the concept of irony.
Ec
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:40 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Western Civilization to me really relates to Western Europe plus key members of its former colonial empires. It does promote certain ideals, but that does not mean that it has been uniformly successful in implementing those ideals. This distinction is difficult for the person who has not yet grasped the concept of irony.
Actually this distinction was part of my argument. You seem to miss the point that the evidence (the millions who have died and suffered) suggests these ideals to be not much more than propaganda in a system that has historically implemented the opposite of such ideals.
Christiaan
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:40 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Western Civilization to me really relates to Western Europe plus key members of its former colonial empires. It does promote certain ideals, but that does not mean that it has been uniformly successful in implementing those ideals. This distinction is difficult for the person who has not yet grasped the concept of irony.
Actually this distinction was part of my argument. You seem to miss the point that the evidence (the millions who have died and suffered) suggests these ideals to be not much more than propaganda in a system that has historically implemented the opposite of such ideals.
This is a breathtaking oversimplification promoted by various 20th-c. groups for their own sordid purposes. It's a really lazy approach to history, because instead of trying to evaluate actions from a contemporaneous perspective, we evaluate them using our much greater body of available information and viewpoints.
For instance, it was not possible for 19th-century people to consider ecological consequences of clearcutting forests, since there was no science to inform them. Some writers blame Europeans for bringing diseases to the New World - centuries before anybody even had any idea how diseases got around.
This is all relevant to Wikipedia because there are more than a few articles that thoughtlessly apply 20th-century standards to events of the distant past. Leopold in the Congo can be criticized because his actions did not conform to the standards of his own society, but it requires much more care to identify the ideals and realities of Columbus' time.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
For instance, it was not possible for 19th-century people to consider ecological consequences of clearcutting forests, since there was no science to inform them.
The Phoenicians were aware of the consequences of denuding the cedar forests of Lebanon.
Some writers blame Europeans for bringing diseases to the New World - centuries before anybody even had any idea how diseases got around.
I'm sure that General Amherst knew what he was doing when he gave infected blankets to the Indians in 1767. At the Battle of Kaffa in 1346 the besieging Tartars used catapults to fling plague infected bodies into the city. Understanding how infectious diseases worked did not prevent them from being used for military purposes.
We must indeed avoid blaming past generations for things that they could not have understood, but this does not absolve them of all responsibility.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
For instance, it was not possible for 19th-century people to consider ecological consequences of clearcutting forests, since there was no science to inform them.
The Phoenicians were aware of the consequences of denuding the cedar forests of Lebanon.
Can't speak to that one, but in any case they were the exception not the rule.
Some writers blame Europeans for bringing diseases to the New World - centuries before anybody even had any idea how diseases got around.
I'm sure that General Amherst knew what he was doing when he gave infected blankets to the Indians in 1767. At the Battle of Kaffa in 1346 the besieging Tartars used catapults to fling plague infected bodies into the city. Understanding how infectious diseases worked did not prevent them from being used for military purposes.
Yes, plague was known to be infectious early on, and by the 18th century the generalized theory was in the air. The oversimplified version in books mixes up centuries of history though, leaving the impression that Columbus genocided the Indians by coughing into their faces. :-)
We must indeed avoid blaming past generations for things that they could not have understood, but this does not absolve them of all responsibility.
Exactly. I think if one were to be careful in the analysis, that Western civilizations would come out about the same as the others,\ in terms of realities falling short of their ideals.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Some writers blame Europeans for bringing diseases to the New World - centuries before anybody even had any idea how diseases got around.
I'm sure that General Amherst knew what he was doing when he gave infected blankets to the Indians in 1767. At the Battle of Kaffa in 1346 the besieging Tartars used catapults to fling plague infected bodies into the city. Understanding how infectious diseases worked did not prevent them from being used for military purposes.
Yes, plague was known to be infectious early on, and by the 18th century the generalized theory was in the air. The oversimplified version in books mixes up centuries of history though, leaving the impression that Columbus genocided the Indians by coughing into their faces. :-)
Columbus gets it going both ways. There is still some dispute about whether he brought yellow fever to the new world, and he is linked to an outbreak nf that disease in Hispanola in 1495-6. That disease is transmitted by a mosquito rather than by coughing.
He was also blamed for the outbreak of syphilis in the French army in 1404-5. It was the first major outbreak of the disease in Europe. The army that besieged Naples also included a number of Spanish soldiers who had been with Columbus suring his first voyage.
Ec
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:40 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Western Civilization to me really relates to Western Europe plus key members of its former colonial empires. It does promote certain ideals, but that does not mean that it has been uniformly successful in implementing those ideals. This distinction is difficult for the person who has not yet grasped the concept of irony.
Actually this distinction was part of my argument. You seem to miss the point that the evidence (the millions who have died and suffered) suggests these ideals to be not much more than propaganda in a system that has historically implemented the opposite of such ideals.
This argument is based on a distorted time scale. I would give those who developed the ideals the benefit of the doubt. You are committing the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Those millions did not die and suffer because of the ideals, but because of the actions of people who purported to support them. Engaging in a propaganda campaign that claims to be founded on those ideals does not imply that our propagandists believe and practise them.
Ec
On 28 Aug 2004, at 1:20 am, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:40 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Western Civilization to me really relates to Western Europe plus key members of its former colonial empires. It does promote certain ideals, but that does not mean that it has been uniformly successful in implementing those ideals. This distinction is difficult for the person who has not yet grasped the concept of irony.
Actually this distinction was part of my argument. You seem to miss the point that the evidence (the millions who have died and suffered) suggests these ideals to be not much more than propaganda in a system that has historically implemented the opposite of such ideals.
This argument is based on a distorted time scale. I would give those who developed the ideals the benefit of the doubt. You are committing the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Those millions did not die and suffer because of the ideals, but because of the actions of people who purported to support them. Engaging in a propaganda campaign that claims to be founded on those ideals does not imply that our propagandists believe and practise them.
Just to clarify, I never argued that these people died and suffered _because_ of these ideals. My argument is that our culture has extensively used and abused such ideals simply to make its membership feel good about itself when collectively implementing the opposite (imperialism, intolerance of other economic models, war, etc.). Cognitive dissonance often being the outcome when actuality comes to light.
Christiaan