And you still refuse to say how you expect to force most of humanity to convert, or kill them off.
I see that Mr. Dibble has already taken you to task for this nonsense, but though I’m late to this thread, I feel obliged to contribute my own expression of disgust at such an offensive viewpoint.
As my late father was of mixed German-Bengali heritage, I’m most angered by your implicit lumping of the varied ethnicities of the Indian subcontinent under the heading of “barbaric cultures”. You wouldn’t even have any mathematics beyond rudimentary accounting were it not for the insights of such “barbarians”. There are many other examples that could be presented of significant Indian contributions to global culture, but I am not going to go down this road. Your ignorance in this respect is shocking. Before you speak of such things, educate yourself.
And how dare you presume to lecture others about European cultural superiority. Regardless of how many railroads or schools the British built in India, they and the French, Dutch, and Portuguese before them were there only by “virtue” of the brutal and unscrupulous use of force. While this was being built, Europeans were engaged in the systematic enslavement of tens of millions of Africans and Native Americans.
I want to say more, but I have to restrain myself for fear of moderator action.
I’m not talking materially either. I’m pointing out that we retain those elements of cultural importance from the past. Victorians and Edwardians didn’t have those examples you gave, and then lost them to time. We don’t miss out on art and thinking from the Renaissance. These things still exist. And it’s even better now, since our ability to store such information is superior - there’s less of a chance that works deemed unimportant at the time will be lost to future generations.
My point was basically this. If we say “stop; we have enough now” we get to keep all the lovely, nice things that the past and present have given us, culture-wise. That’s a good thing. But we’ll miss out on all the future good things; imagine if people had agreed to your idea before you were born. You’d miss out on all the films or art or books made after that time. Whereas now, you get to enjoy those things - plus you can still look at those past endeavours. It’s win-win.
You know, art and culture don’t boil down to which era had the most paintings you like.
Think about film as an art form, for example.
What? And spoil the surprise? You don’t think I’m going to tell the leader of the resistance, do ya?
My original answer was semi-facetious. I wanted to make the point that the best days of Western civilization were ahead, and what kind of future I hoped for. BUT if it does happen, it’ll happen the way the Faith spread in the earliest years and has for the past century- through peaceful persuasion and service in meeting the needs of people.
The Golden Age of the West was around 1881, when the Earps and the Clantons settled it like men at the OK Corral.
Win.
Because prior to colonization they hadn’t changed much.
You’re basically using the whole “White Man’s Burden” argument.
[/QUOTE]
And other people have been using the Godwin’s Law argument.
If only a few things had gone differently the War would have been quite shorter and less traumatic-for instance if Britain had not intervened, if the German offensive had succeedeed, etc.
Because it would be mostly a tribal society as it was before colonization although there were exceptions in the Arabic-influenced areas.
Rudyard Kipling himself.
I live in Anaheim-not some podunk fundie burg.
Yes and I’m sure the Moghuls would have created an enlightened democracy. :rolleyes: If the British hadn’t come India probably would not be the world’s largest democracy. It was Western ideas that laid the foundation for the tolerant philosophy of Ghandi. Plus even according to the Wikipedia article Muslims have not been immune to the creation of a caste system.
I did not think Indians were barbarians but by 1900 compared to the West they were backward in ideas regarding such things as the caste system.
Would that make the Africans any worse off? The Europeans carved out colonies for their own economic and strategic purposes, that made no sense in terms of local national/ethnic identities, then cut them loose as independent states with modern weapons and minimal industrial base. The Africans have been ravaged by border wars and civil wars ever since. Without interference from outside except for trade, their tribes might have gradually evolved into healthy, organic nation-states, the way Europe’s feudal principalities did.
And don’t forget the **pre-**colonial damage done to African societies by the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Yes, there had always been slavery in Africa, but the Europeans introduced a new element – a lucrative export market – which not only shipped millions of Africans to slavery overseas, but incited rampant banditry to capture slaves, and even wars that were really large-scale slave raids. Many historians believe the “African Holocaust” did incalculable damage to African societies.
:rolleyes: Poets did not get to make imperial policy.
If you don’t know anything about the history of India, just admit it.
Hey, just because it’s been settled for the last 9,000 years and is the birthplace of 4 major religions doesn’t mean anything. It wasn’t a Christian nation and it had an obvious lack of Europeans. Duh. :rolleyes:
The Mughals were already in decay long before the British came and set the whole subcontinent straight, pip pip. Had the Imperial-wallahs not set up shop, most of the country would probably have eventually united under Sikh and/or Maratha rule. Who probably would have kept the caste system, at that, but so what ? Their country, their culture, their fucking business.
Besides, it’s not like European societies don’t have informal castes of their own…
spit take
Boy oh boy. You must need a wheelbarrow to cart around those huge balls of yours.
Although you are right, in a sense : Western wholesale butchery in their colonial endeavours and both world wars did indeed strengthen his non-violent ideals, just as Western rampant racism and discrimination made him understand the benefits of tolerance.
In any case, you can’t at the same time trot out that ol’ colonialist Spirit Of 1750 AND extol Ghandi’s virtues in the same breath. You gotta pick a side, son.
Godwin’s Law isn’t an argument, Curtis. It’s basically just an observation about debates.
And an archaic one. Instead of comparing people to Nazis being used as a tactic to shout people down, Godwin’s Law is. It’s inverted.
Please–give us a detailed account of this Alternative Great War you’ve got in your mind. Including the time table & the shape of Europe after it was done.
What actually happened was that the “civilized” nations of Europe got together & destroyed a whole generation of their young men. And laid the foundation of another, even worse, war.
This is such a breathtakingly imbecilic statement that I am going to let it stand alone so that others may admire it in its pristine state.
How about all the others, such as myself, who haven’t used it? Just because someone in a thread says “Hitler” doesn’t give your ignorance a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Geographically, your location may be somewhat modern, but intellectually, you reside so far back in the woods that you look to this guy for decorating tips.
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t. Either way, it’s not your call. And as an aside, during your beloved belle époque, it would hardly be apt to describe the West as filled with “enlightened democracies”. :rolleyes:, yourself.
See above.
You can’t be serious, can you? Mohandas was a fucking Hindu! Western ideas had absolutely zero influence upon the ethos of Hinduism.
Yes, nice throwback to the wiki on caste. I’ll notice you made no mention that that same article also noted that the word caste “was first used by the Portuguese to describe inherited class status in their own European society”.
Well, you originally implied as much by lumping all indigenous societies under the control of European empires as “barbaric”. I’m glad to see you’ve somewhat modified your position at least in respect to India.
However, your constant disparaging of various facets of those indigenous societies (the caste system in India, as you continue to bleat), is so far besides the point when contrasting the moralities of European and non-European societies at that time as to be laughable.
It is analogous to a gang of burglars who, in the midst of ransacking your home, take the time to criticize the way you organize your CD collection.
So what? Indians would be worse off today-far worse off. India would be some sort of an absolute monarchy or feudal state. Think Bhutan or pre-Communist Chinese Tibet times X1,000,000. The average Indian would be worse off and the whole world would suffer for it.
Had the Marathas or Moguls ruled India the ideas of democracy and caste equality would have been laughed at or worse.
To give an example. Had Germany’s offensive to the Marne succeedeed (it failed due to the fact that several divisions were siphoned off to support the Eastern Front but they got there after the battle was over) they would have reached Paris in a few weeks and Britain may have negotiated a peace with the Wilhelmine Germans. No ten million dead on the trenches, no Russian Revolution, no Nazis, no breakup of the old European empires and the rise of bitter ethnonationalisms, no Communists, basically every evil of the last hundred years gone.
Curious how leftists say “MYOB” when caste systems exist but not when things such as health care is concerned.
First of all European class systems were rather more mobile than Hindu ones and by modern times they have mostly disappeared.
Kipling, who was best buds with Rhodes, Milner and Jameson? That Kipling? You must be fucking joking. Idealist my arse.
I’m sorry, your little fundie towns all blur into one to me. Nice little amusement park, though.
Who knows? Maybe - they certainly weren’t as backwards as some other Muslim rulers.
You seem to like alt-history, how about this scenario: Muslim and Hindu rulers, tempered by Sikh and Buddhist intellectuals and a minor, but vibrant Jain scientific community, leads India into unification and full democracy by 1900. They then go on to be the world’s 2nd great superpower, while Europe wastes its youth in the trenches of France.
Right. Because the British were so big on democracy in India.
Yeah, such Western ideas as *ahimsa *and satyagraha:rolleyes:.
Man, don’t spout off about things you know nothing about.
Nor were the British. But as I pointed out, the Muslim one was significantly different, and simpler, than the Hindu one.
Really? So there’s no class system in Britain, then?
When did I deny that? By modern times I meant post World War II. Yes there’s still an aristocracy but they have little power and are mostly for show or honours.