see below

On 27 Aug 2004, at 22:05, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:18:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

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.

Oh, I can /easily/ accept that there are "at least one or two redeeming things to Western Civilization". You just picked a subject where we're hardly an example to the world.

If I don't misread your original email (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030035.html) then you seemed to say that a "willing[ness] to engage in a conversation about [one's views/contributions]" was an "ideal [which] is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to be taught to the rest of the world."

You also appeared to say that "respect[ing] other people's POV" and being "willing to explain our own POV" and seeking a "fair & beneficial exchange between [our own POV and other people's POV]" was part of that same ideal which you perceived as an occidental contribution that should be taught to the world.

- I would question the overall willingness of "Western Civilization" to engage in a conversation about its own ideals/views, both historically and on balance also today. Famous quote: "You're either with us or against us." - I would also question whether "Western Civilization" ever sought, or is seeking now, a "fair & beneficial exchange" of ideals. Beneficial to us, maybe. Fair, I doubt it. - In essence: Meaningful multilateral discourse and compromise is hardly an occidental invention. We have a lot to learn in that area and are no way near being teachers on the subject. To the contrary, we're the bleeding school yard bullies who for all their mistaken self-esteem and deluded overbearing pride /just won't bloody listen/.

And because it seems to be a point of anger here,

Anger? Hm. Immediately perceiving a strong objection as "anger" isn't a good example your aforementioned ideals, now is it?

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;

EXACTLY. Our tradition is to STRUGGLE with these issues. That's not quite the same as HAVING high standards of "tolerance, pluralism, & unfettered speech".

I'm not saying that other cultures don't struggle with them, but we're HARDLY the sole inventors or champions of these ideals.

I am unaware of any serious argument that this tradition of thought was introduced from Africa, India, or China.

Let me put it like this: I believe "Western" history (incl. present politics) as regards freedom of thought and free interchange of ideas is flawed at best. Yes there are good and noble attempts. But we have consistently destroyed more such attempts than fostered them (and still do).

There are many examples. Let me give you just two:

1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/165363.stm Quick aside: Which country /backed/ the coup (that unseated the democratically elected Chilean president) in connection with which Jara was killed? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/hob/prog_11.shtml This is the companion website to a TV production -- you can also get the DVD: http://video.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp? sourceid=00395996645644787198&btob=Y&ean=733961704464&VIEW=MNU

And from my long reading of history, I know that Western Civilization hardly has a monopoly on violence, oppression, ignorance & hatred.

Not a monopoly, no. Far from it. But we still manage to clearly dominate the market.

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.

We can TOGETHER with all other cultures try to pass on the better ideals OF THE WORLD. But we should cut our omphaloskepsis and not claim to have invented them alone. And before we try to "teach" other cultures anything, we should maybe try and mend our own ways. And I DO NOT say that we should "lead by example". Because there really isn't any reason why we always have to "lead". What's wrong with cooperation under equal terms?

And the means this could be passed on is thru how we run Wikipedia.

Could be. The Wikipedia could become a noble instrument for together passing on the better ideals of the world. However, in the meantime, there is a digital divide. And a food divide. A senior US diplomat once said that 3000-odd people perished in the 9/11 attacks and we still mourn them, but we should not forget that 10,000 people die of hunger EVERY DAY. (His words, not mine. But in case you're not counting, that is more than three 9/11's a day.)

I guess I've learned that this ideal of pluralism, tolerance, & mutual respect isn't even that strongly held within the Wikipedia community.

Geoff

Quite to the contrary, it absolutely is. What makes you think otherwise?

Thanks and regards,

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com