The difference between civilization and primitivism

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Are you trying to tell me that the Romans still dominate?

We are experincing their cultural echoes and political structures, but they most certainly do not rule the world by any stretch.

Not to mention it still took three Punic wars to take out the Cathaginians. Not mention after the razing of Carthage the Roman general essentially predicted the fate of the Roman civilization.

What a crude view of history you possess.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by peter12

What does being "white" have to do with it? Was Thucydides white?

What an absolute joke.

No, he was Greek. I still think my point is valid. As were talking about Angle-centric narratives in classical histories. If you want to have a discussion on realism or the Peloponnesian War we can go right ahead. I just don't see how you can use Thucydides' ethnicity to dance around my argument.

Originally Posted by peter12

What a crude view of history you possess.

Kind of funny coming from someone unwilling to embrace the concept of Historiography.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm out to lunch because I don't think that institutionalized victimhood is a good way to solve a continent's glaring problems?

You are out to lunch because you fail to recognize the severity of the damage done through colonial times and how much impact it can have on culture and a population of people. Yes, you are most definitely out to lunch on that.

Is your arguement that there is something inherently wrong with "African" culture?

(I hate saying "african" because the continent is obviously filled with a variety of cultures and ethnicities, not just "africans").

But please, enlighten us. Why does their society allow phenomenon like this to happen?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

What a crude view of history you possess.

Or maybe sometimes it's easier to step back from the details and examine the big picture. Everything that ever happened falls into a big pot of HUMAN HISTORY and shapes all that happens after it. This is not a dismissal of what the Romans accomplished. What it is, is basically stating that the world has moved on past their time of dominance and everything they created has mutated beyond their original intention/function/practice.

Nice ad hominem attack by the way.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

No, he was Greek. I still think my point is valid. As were talking about Angle-centric narratives in classical histories. If you want to have a discussion on realism or the Peloponnesian War we can go right ahead. I just don't see how you can use Thucydides' ethnicity to dance around my argument.

What does being white have to do with it? Is it wrong to say that Ango-"centric" scholarship is extremely good quality? I think it's wrong to assume that just because someone is white, they can't be a good scholar. In fact, good academia tends to go the other way.

But, seriously, back to your Cultural Studies class.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Or maybe sometimes it's easier to step back from the details and examine the big picture. Everything that ever happened falls into a big pot of HUMAN HISTORY and shapes all that happens after it. This is not a dismissal of what the Romans accomplished. What it is, is basically stating that the world has moved on past their time of dominance and everything they created has mutated beyond their original intention/function/practice.

Nice ad hominem attack by the way.

The Roman Republic is the Western way of politics. We haven't lost that in 2000 years of history. That's power. Likewise, the only way Western ideas will recede into historical nomenclature is if the attacks of people like yourself succeed.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Roman Republic is the Western way of politics. We haven't lost that in 2000 years of history. That's power. Likewise, the only way Western ideas will recede into historical nomenclature is if the attacks of people like yourself succeed.

What the heck does this even mean? "People like yourself"?

And just so you know, there are alot of world nations (outside Africa) that do not practice 'western' politics. Some of them are even successful!

Not to mention, many of these atrocities are commited in African countries that parrot our 'western' political system.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by peter12

What does being white have to do with it? Is it wrong to say that Ango-"centric" scholarship is extremely good quality? I think it's wrong to assume that just because someone is white, they can't be a good scholar. In fact, good academia tends to go the other way.

But, seriously, back to your Cultural Studies class.

Clearly you missed the point of my post. Race doesn't matter when comes to scholorship. I merely referencing traditional histories that focus on the adventures and doings of rich Europeans. Simply put Historiography is the study of history. I'm not saying a 'white' person couldn't be a better or worse scholar. That was never my intent. The discipline of history is more embracing of looking at events through other lenses. Not just the usual Western European lens. Thats all I mean.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

What the heck does this even mean? "People like yourself"?

And just so you know, there are alot of world nations (outside Africa) that do not practice 'western' politics. Some of them are even successful!

Not to mention, many of these atrocities are commited in African countries that parrot our 'western' political system.

People who don't recognize what constitutes a good regime or a bad regime.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Clearly you missed the point of my post. Race doesn't matter when comes to scholorship. I merely referencing traditional histories that focus on the adventures and doings of rich Europeans. Simply put Historiography is the study of history. I'm not saying a 'white' person couldn't be a better or worse scholar. That was never my intent. The discipline of history is more embracing of looking at events through other lenses. Not just the usual Western European lens. Thats all I mean.

I think you are mistakenly lumping someone like Kipling in with the rest of Western academia. Although, I like Kipling. Seriously, what is wrong with reading the adventures of Western explorers? We've never been to these places and chances are we don't understand it as well as they do. I don't need some post-modernist African Studies professor to tell me that some of the things they did were wrong.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Igottago

But please, enlighten us. Why does their society allow phenomenon like this to happen?

Oh man, I honestly don't know why there is so much hostility towards peter12 in this thread. This question I quoted is exactly what he wanted this thread to be about. If he knew the answer to this phenomenon wouldn't he have written it down? Hell, if he knew the solution and could carry it through, he would be world famous and maybe win a nobel peace prize. There isn't a single solution to this problem however. Is cannibalism even a problem? The point I'm trying to make is that there seem to be some straw man arguments floating around in this thread where none of them seem to have anything to do with the posed question.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think you are mistakenly lumping someone like Kipling in with the rest of Western academia. Although, I like Kipling. Seriously, what is wrong with reading the adventures of Western explorers? We've never been to these places and chances are we don't understand it as well as they do. I don't need some post-modernist African Studies professor to tell me that some of the things they did were wrong.

I'm not lumping anyone in anything. I'm merely suggesting that in order for any kind of lasting change to be made (anywhere) you need to come at the problem holistically and understand the historical factors that led to the point said situation is at. I'm not trying to suggest there is no value in 'traditional' history, I'm just saying I believe their is value in understanding an event via multiple lenses. And to pigeon hold yourself to one singular perspective isn't beneficial to "struggle for humanity".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I'm not lumping anyone in anything. I'm merely suggesting that in order for any kind of lasting change to be made (anywhere) you need to come at the problem holistically and understand the historical factors that led to the point said situation is at. I'm not trying to suggest there is no value in 'traditional' history, I'm just saying I believe their is value in understanding an event via multiple lenses. And to pigeon hold yourself to one singular perspective isn't beneficial to "struggle for humanity".

Yeah, but what lasting change? To what purpose? History shouldn't be revolutionary. It's just the cataloguing of human stories. I don't want multiple lenses, because I don't believe that I even have the slightest comprehension of one perspective, let alone multiple ones. People are damn lazy. All of this new cultural relativism is just a way for people to avoid asking the hard questions.

Like how the heck does colonialism have anything to do with black Africans butchering albino Africans for their genitals to use as magical talismans? I don't think that they are animals, just primitive. Why? On a personal level, I could (and have) spent a meal with an African person laughing, telling stories, and exchanging personal views like any other human being. Why is their cultural/political order so profoundly putrid?

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by TheU

Is it your contention then that societies don't evolve?

Not necessarily. But I would only use the word evolve to refer to scientific evolution. I definitely don't have a problem with references to societal evolution though so no discussion to be had here.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Oh man, I honestly don't know why there is so much hostility towards peter12 in this thread. This question I quoted is exactly what he wanted this thread to be about. If he knew the answer to this phenomenon wouldn't he have written it down? Hell, if he knew the solution and could carry it through, he would be world famous and maybe win a nobel peace prize. There isn't a single solution to this problem however. Is cannibalism even a problem? The point I'm trying to make is that there seem to be some straw man arguments floating around in this thread where none of them seem to have anything to do with the posed question.

That the thing though, there was no question posited, just an inflammitory title, and a link.

It was essentially a "Hey look how backward and @#$#ed up everyone who doesn't live in Canada is!" topic that wasn't presented with any kind of insight or motive to why it was posted, and succeeded by posts containing nothing but vitrol and hate for different cultures.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That the thing though, there was no question posited, just an inflammitory title, and a link.

It was essentially a "Hey look how backward and @#$#ed up everyone who doesn't live in Canada is!" topic that wasn't presented with any kind of insight or motive to why it was posted, and succeeded by posts containing nothing but vitrol and hate for different cultures.

Do I have to tell you what to think?

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That the thing though, there was no question posited, just an inflammitory title, and a link.

It was essentially a "Hey look how backward and @#$#ed up everyone who doesn't live in Canada is!" topic that wasn't presented with any kind of insight or motive to why it was posted, and succeeded by posts containing nothing but vitrol and hate for different cultures.

That's true. I guess I just inferred a question based on the title and post.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

Like how the heck does colonialism have anything to do with black Africans butchering albino Africans for their genitals to use as magical talismans? I don't think that they are animals, just primitive. Why? On a personal level, I could (and have) spent a meal with an African person laughing, telling stories, and exchanging personal views like any other human being. Why is their cultural/political order so profoundly putrid?

I was waiting for the obligatory "I have friends who are of a different race/culture/creed!" comment. Unsubstantiable and unnecessary.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do I have to tell you what to think?

Nope. And it certainly wasn't hard to tell what you were thinking either.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I was waiting for the obligatory "I have friends who are of a different race/culture/creed!" comment. Unsubstantiable and unnecessary.

As I said before, do I have to tell you what to think? Does something to pass a certain level of standard before you will honestly engage with it? I think you are exposing your own ignorance.