On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 06:18:26 UTC, Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com> wrote: 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: 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. "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." No, I didn't think that. Which is exactly what the book covers. Really it's a good book, don't be put off by my polemic. 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. 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. 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. 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: 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, I know, that's why I said "he argued." Well, luckily for me, my response was nether reflexive nor condemning of Western culture. Christiaan

Christiaan Briggs wrote: You gave yourself away when you repeated it all uncritically... 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: 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. 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

Christiaan Briggs wrote: 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

Christiaan Briggs wrote: 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

Stan Shebs wrote: The Phoenicians were aware of the consequences of denuding the cedar forests of Lebanon. 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: Can't speak to that one, but in any case they were the exception not the rule. 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. :-) 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

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

Stan Shebs wrote: 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

What do you think of the arguement that blocking Michael blocks AOL users? Fred