The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[peter12]

Where were the mods when all this started going down?

[jayswin]

Who cares, it got way better with a few self moderating posts aimed at keeping the discussion civil. Rehashing it now will only take the thread off the rails again.

[calgaryblood]

Yep one of the best conversations this board has seen (yes SEEN) all summer with great insight from Itse, Crumpy gunt, and sworkhard.

Edit: can't forget about Pepsifree.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

As for the goal of having people around the world living in equality, I think it's a fool's errand. I would rather 80% of the world live in free, liberal cultures and 20% live under oppression and dictatorships

Thats a false dichotomy. Who says the choice is between 80% living free liberal countries and 20% living in oppression vs 100% living in equally corrupt and impoverished conditions. If you understand it isnt a choice between those two extremes then why would you 'rather' 20% of the worlds people live under oppression and dictatorships? I'm genuinely curious to know why you feel this way because I think many people would see that as a carelessness or lack of empathy - so would you mind explaining why you feel that way?

We dont even currently have 80% living in free liberal countries. Its actually more like 20% living in free countries and 80 percent under varying forms of oppression

I also dont see how skeptic is antithetical to activist..

Most activists I know are skeptics.

I get it, you dont really care as much about people as a whole but those who you've met and have an importance to you. But you dont need to explain it away as some conflict of percentages ie - we either keep 20% of the world in poverty or it becomes 100% corrupt. I dont think there is any proof for that.

Nobody was really implying they are 100% selfless and care more about starving children than their own families. Why does it have to be - either you are a 'skeptic' who thinks humanitarianism is a fool's errand or be some person who has donated all of their life to a cause like poverty.

I think there can be infinite shades of grey in between. For example I dont think one has to be an all out super humanitarian or some selfish person who only cares about what effects them. One can take care of their own community and at the same time work (from their own community) to support the developing world, not just financially but politically, socially, technologically, educationally etc.

I'm curious if you would think of global equality as a fool's errand if your family lived in a violent, poor 5th world country rich in natural resources but ruled by a corrupt government. Maybe you would see it as something other than a fool's errand if you stood to gain something (freedom, peace, prosperity) from it.

Also the whole 'I want to focus in my own backyard' isnt really an excuse. People can take care of their local communities and still have an interest in spurring change in the developing world. Thats like saying I cant be bothered with the well-being of other children, I've got my own. One can be a watchful father of his own family and still assist a broader community or volunteer with other children. I've hear the whole 'lets focus in our own communities first' as if being active in ones own community is incompatible with inspiring change on a global scale. Not to mention one can even effect the world through their own community - by voting for leaders who push for change in these regions rather than ones who turn a blind eye to these things. I think its a poor excuse personally. I'd prefer if people just came out and said - look..I've got my own stuff to deal with in my life and im stretched too far as it is trying to keep my head above water so I've got no extra time or ability to change things currently. Or even I dont really care about those people because they arent important to me, or as important as the people who are closest in proximity and culture to myself. I feel like people who arent even involved in their local communities use the we need to start in our own backyard as an excuse for their laziness and lack of interest in helping people they dont know.

[sworkhard]

I never said it's the only two options, only that I'd rather that former than the latter. Certainly, 100% would be better, but IMO, the I expect that the Putin's and Erdoğan's of the world will always manage to find a place to rule, though I wish this wasn't the case. Further, people make mistakes and sometimes these lead to hardship. Look at Greece for example. Until people stop making mistakes, hard time will continue to exist in parts of the world, and sometimes people will elect dictators that do a lot of harm. This is why I think that achieving 100% free and open societies is highly unlikely. A noble goal no doubt, I just don't think it's achievable. As for equality, I think gender and racial equality are things to strive for. I don't think equality is good in many other parts of life. Much of my life is good because I have hopes and dreams that I strive to achieve, and these would not exist if everything was equal in life.

Finally, if your bothered to read my post, you'd know I talked about how I'm helping people outside my own back yard. What are you doing to help?

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

I never said it's the only two options, only that I'd rather that former than the latter. Certainly, 100% would be better, but IMO, the I expect that the Putin's and Erdoğan's of the world will always manage to find a place to rule, though I wish this wasn't the case. Further, people make mistakes and sometimes these lead to hardship. Look at Greece for example. Until people stop making mistakes, hard time will continue to exist in parts of the world, and sometimes people will elect dictators that do a lot of harm. This is why I think that achieving 100% free and open societies is highly unlikely. A noble goal no doubt, I just don't think it's achievable. As for equality, I think gender and racial equality are things to strive for. I don't think equality is good in many other parts of life. Much of my life is good because I have hopes and dreams that I strive to achieve, and these would not exist if everything was equal in life.

Finally, if your bothered to read my post, you'd know I talked about how I'm helping people outside my own back yard. What are you doing to help?

First off I think you took my post the wrong way and got on the defensive - I did read your whole post and I'm sorry I didnt acknowledge the fact you do help people outside of your own back yard. I think thats good. In much of that post I'm not addressing you but discussing people who have in the past told me the same thing, maybe I didnt make it clear enough that parts of my post were directed at people who have said the same thing before.

Putin and Erdogan are completely different beasts but that is a huge discussion we can save for another thread.

I think its a misconception that these nations have all simply made mistakes that have lead to their hardships. Its not the case in many parts of the world that are in no way comparable to Greece.

To answer your question I do a lot for people specifically in the middle East and Africa but we can start a thread on poster humanitarianism to delve into that. Its not really a bragging point for me but in the right discussion I would be comfortable talking about some of the projects ive been apart of in the developing world.

I don't think equality is good in many other parts of life. Much of my life is good because I have hopes and dreams that I strive to achieve, and these would not exist if everything was equal in life.

I was pretty surprised to read this to be honest. You think that equality outside of race and gender equality is a threat to your hopes and dreams?

Much of your life is good because you strive to achieve things? So those in Africa live in poverty because they don't strive and those around the world living in corruption are not hoping enough?

What are your hopes and dreams, to start an oil company in the Middle East or a copper mining company in Africa? (sarcasm)

I agree with most of what you said but I'm baffled by the bit I quoted above. Its basically the typical attitude I've observed in westerners when they discuss poverty or financial inequality on a global scale or even in their home countries when speaking about the lower-class. "they are lazy, I work hard for what I have and they've made mistakes and deserve what they are getting until they can learn how to be hard working and civilized like we are"

Pretty ugly to me and many others but I dont think you are some kind of bigot or monster for thinking that way. I think it is a misconception of the western world and a pride thing as well - we want to think we deserve everything we have because we are smart and 'work hard'. Wishful thinking at best and willful ignorance at worst. It is actually a historically capitalist rhetoric that economic/financial equality on a global or even societal scale is a threat to the wealth of the middle - upper class.

I think that is somewhat of a dangerous belief because not only does it cause people to ignore the HUGE economic gap in western nations it also causes people to ignore the astronomical economic divide between the 1st world and developing world - since it is deemed a threat to their 'way/standard of life'. It fuels the exploitation and western imposed set-backs on the development of these nations we deem a financial or strategic 'threat' to the global financial hegemony; just as lower-middle class members of western society are seen as a financial threat to the middle-upper class members of society. Its a microcosm of the global economic divide. People fearfully believing that prosperity for the impoverished means poverty for the prosperous. Fear is a strong thing - especially when coupled with pride and wanting to provide the very best you can for your own family even at the expense of other families.

The issue I have with that line of thinking is it blames historically oppressed people for their oppression as if the prosperity of the west wasnt largely built on free 3rd world resources, slaves, colonialism, war, etc. I think its only normal for people to want to think they deserve what they have because the alternative could mean they benefited from the fact they were born in a peaceful, prosperous country to good parents etc. As opposed to born in a warring ****hole of a country as an orphan.

Anyway thanks for the chat, its definitely interesting stuff..

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

The issue I have with that line of thinking is it blames historically oppressed people for their oppression as if the prosperity of the west wasnt largely built on free 3rd world resources, slaves, colonialism, war, etc.

That's simply not true. Europe was pulling away from Africa and the Middle East before colonialism got into full swing. This prosperity came from trade, science, commerce, literacy, private property, political systems that devolved power to a larger body of citizens than a tyrant and his court.

This is what what happens when people become politically active before (or instead of) learning history. People who see the world simply as narrative of Western exploitation are betraying their own ignorance of the world beyond the West, where warfare, competition, conquest and exploitation have been with us since the time of the pyramids.

India has always been both incredibly rich and incredibly poor, and its rulers were usually whichever invaders had most recently poured down from Central Asia. China was one of the most prosperous parts of the world for centuries. Was China richer than Indonesia because of exploitation?

Prosperity derives partly from the quirks of geography, but more importantly it derives from culture. In 1950, Korea was one of the most impoverished places on the planet. It had few resources, a population of oppressed peasants, and it was occupied by a succession of foreign powers, from China to Japan to Russia to the U.S. A brutal war was fought over its landscape, and left the country divided. Today, South Korea is one of the most affluent and advanced countries in the world. That isn't because of colonialism or exploitation. It's rich because it had, or developed, a culture geared towards innovation and industry.

Those who want to look at history and global affairs as a morality play, with villains and victims and saviors, aren't serious people. They subordinate the complex and serious world we live in to their own ideological agenda. It's understandable that 19-year-olds indulge in that kind of activism. They're learning to think independently, and are apt to defy any authority just because if feels good. People who still think that way at 39 never got past the adolescent rebellion stage of intellectual development.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's simply not true. Europe was pulling away from Africa and the Middle East before colonialism got into full swing. This prosperity came from trade, science, commerce, literacy, private property, political systems that devolved power to a larger body of citizens than a tyrant and his court.

This is what what happens when people become politically active before (or instead of) learning history. People who see the world simply as narrative of Western exploitation are betraying their own ignorance of the world beyond the West, where warfare, competition, conquest and exploitation have been with us since the time of the pyramids.

India has always been both incredibly rich and incredibly poor, and its rulers were usually whichever invaders had most recently poured down from Central Asia. China was one of the most prosperous parts of the world for centuries. Was China richer than Indonesia because of exploitation?

Prosperity derives partly from the quirks of geography, but more importantly it derives from culture. In 1950, Korea was one of the most impoverished places on the planet. It had few resources, a population of oppressed peasants, and it was occupied by a succession of foreign powers, from China to Japan to Russia to the U.S. A brutal war was fought over its landscape, and left the country divided. Today, South Korea is one of the most affluent and advanced countries in the world. That isn't because of colonialism or exploitation. It's rich because it had, or developed, a culture geared towards innovation and industry.

Those who want to look at history and global affairs as a morality play, with villains and victims and saviors, aren't serious people. They subordinate the complex and serious world we live in to their own ideological agenda. It's understandable that 19-year-olds indulge in that kind of activism. They're learning to think independently, and are apt to defy any authority just because if feels good. People who still think that way at 39 never got past the adolescent rebellion stage of intellectual development.

god damn. did you drop your keyboard after that post?

[peter12]

The over-emphasis on geopolitical colonialism as a driving factor of third-world poverty also serves to indirectly disempower these countries/groups even further. How can anyone act or have hope against the march of a history that has supposedly lead them to a point of near despair and no return?

It is, in a sense, a crude historicism - an impoverished understanding of Hegel's slaughter bench of history.

That's not say that colonialism has had a diverse impact that on societies that were incredibly complex. In the case of India, it is fair to say that the gradual Anglo conquest of the subcontinent changed both societies in a profound way. There was no pre-Western Eden, instead India was a collection of fractured confederacies running the full gambit of governments from robber baron Maratha Confederacy to the sophisticated centrally-governed Mughal Empire. British influence was ever only marginal, and while of course even marginal effects can have incredibly massive cultural effects, these are often entirely unintended.

To truly talk about politics in a mature way, one must be able to divorce grand historical meta-narrative from the actions of real people occurring within specific time and space. Crumpy claims to have had all of these experiences, to have known and spoken to thousands of Muslims, but he has still imposed an inferior type of Western lens over those people, even though he wants to pretend otherwise for the sake of signalling his superiority.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Who cares, it got way better with a few self moderating posts aimed at keeping the discussion civil. Rehashing it now will only take the thread off the rails again.

It's been a second year political science discussion group.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

I was pretty surprised to read this to be honest. You think that equality outside of race and gender equality is a threat to your hopes and dreams?

Much of your life is good because you strive to achieve things? So those in Africa live in poverty because they don't strive and those around the world living in corruption are not hoping enough?

What are your hopes and dreams, to start an oil company in the Middle East or a copper mining company in Africa? (sarcasm)

I agree with most of what you said but I'm baffled by the bit I quoted above. Its basically the typical attitude I've observed in westerners when they discuss poverty or financial inequality on a global scale or even in their home countries when speaking about the lower-class. "they are lazy, I work hard for what I have and they've made mistakes and deserve what they are getting until they can learn how to be hard working and civilized like we are"

Let me be a bit more clear.

1. I don't think equality for equality's sake is good because it interferes with everyone's ability to improve in areas beyond the ones that are generally agreed on like race, gender, etc. There are other areas it's good too, those are just the ones that come to mind. I think this is just as true in the poorest areas of the world as the richest ones. Further, beyond wealth, say, for example, physical ability, a cripple may not be equal with someone who can walk easily on his own, but he can still dream and work towards making his condition less of a hindrance, so long as proper safety nets are in place.

2. I think we ought to strive for a minimum standard in many other areas. This is not equality though. The minimum standard has a long ways to go in many parts of the world before it's acceptable, but it's improving due to the efforts of groups like nothing but nets in combination with governments and organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

3. I'm generally pro social safety net. I'm for this safety net because I'm not for any measure of enforced equality, but am for minimum standards, and achieving this means that a few mistakes should note leave anyone starving and homeless.

4. Being opposed to equality for equality's sake rather than for fairness sake doesn't mean I oppose a certain amount of wealth re-distributation through taxation. I think it's only fair that income beyond the necessities be taxed, and that income that goes beyond covering the basics, should be taxed at a higher rate again.

I hope this clears thing up.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's simply not true. Europe was pulling away from Africa and the Middle East before colonialism got into full swing.

I'm sorry, but what? And people are actually thanking this post?

I mean, I have no idea what period in time you're talking about, but it's certainly not colonialism. Colonialism is a term that most commonly refers to European colonialism in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. It was basically created to describe exactly that thing.

After the age of colonization became the era of neo-imperialism, which includes The Scramble for Africa. This is the part where the map of Africa is drawn by mostly European countries.

After neo-imperialism became the era of neo-colonialism, which refers to the continued significant influence of mostly European and American powers over by-then technically de-colonized developing countries. At this point the multinational corporations really start taking over the picture, but I have never heard anyone claim that Europe was somehow out of the game.

The claim that the wealth of Europe and US was not in significant part built on natural resources from colonized countries is so absurd that it's mostly something I'd expect from a person who has never taken a single course of history in his life. I can't even come up with a comparative example of how ridiculous this is.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm sorry, but what? And people are actually thanking this post?

I mean, I have no idea what period in time you're talking about, but it's certainly not colonialism. Colonialism is a term that most commonly refers to European colonialism in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. It was basically created to describe exactly that thing.

After the age of colonization became the era of neo-imperialism, which includes The Scramble for Africa. This is the part where the map of Africa is drawn by mostly European countries.

After neo-imperialism became the era of neo-colonialism, which refers to the continued significant influence of mostly European and American powers over by-then technically de-colonized developing countries. At this point the multinational corporations really start taking over the picture, but I have never heard anyone claim that Europe was somehow out of the game.

The claim that the wealth of Europe and US was not in significant part built on natural resources from colonized countries is so absurd that it's mostly something I'd expect from a person who has never taken a single course of history in his life. I can't even come up with a comparative example of how ridiculous this is.

Well, this post is a pretty good example of how context can be abused for ideological ends.

European countries, from the beginning of the 16th century, were already creating the modern trade system, which is the cause of most of today's wealth.

The only country who stockpiled resources from its colonies was Spain, and by the mid 17th century, the country was a corrupt, bankrupt disaster.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

The claim that the wealth of Europe and US was not significantly built on natural resources from colonized countries is so absurd that it's mostly something I'd expect from a person who has never taken a single course of history in his life. I can't even come up with a comparative example of how ridiculous this is.

Most colonies were a net drain on the colonizer's coffers. Spain got a temporary boost from gold and silver from the new world, but then it led to inflation and the repeated collapse of Spain's finances. By the 17th century, its vast overseas empire didn't stop Spain from being a backwards, second-rate power in decline. While in that same era, countries like Sweden and Denmark became prosperous and strong, despite no overseas colonies.

And of course there's Germany, which at the height of the imperial era had virtually no empire to speak of, and yet was already the strongest and most advanced country in Europe (and the world), and well on its way to dominance before it foolishly provoked a general war.

[White Out 403]

Itse is this you?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Was China richer than Indonesia because of exploitation?

Indonesia was more or less under Dutch rule for 300 years, ending in a 4-year war of indepence that ended in 1949.

China used to be an empire before it became a country, and that was no honorific. The Chinese rulers/emperors took over their neighbouring areas and exploited those. Europeans went overseas, but the dynamic is really no different. (It's actually why southern China started farming vast amounts of rice instead of their traditional diet of fruits and vegetables after they got conquered by the northern Chinese. Rice was much more convenient to store and transport up north.)

In China, a hundred years since the empire fell, the parts of China that were exploited are still extremely poor and underdeveloped in comparison to the parts that originally did the conquering.

So, quite the example. I really think you should stay away from teaching history to others.

[peter12]

I don't understand your point. Politics can frequently be unjust? I really fail to see what you are arguing here.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

China used to be an empire before it became a country, and that was no honorific. The Chinese rulers/emperors took over their neighbouring areas and exploited those. Europeans went overseas, but the dynamic is really no different. (It's actually why southern China started farming vast amounts of rice instead of their traditional diet of fruits and vegetables after they got conquered by the northern Chinese. Rice was much more convenient to store and transport up north.)

In China, a hundred years since the empire fell, the parts of China that were exploited are still extremely poor and underdeveloped in comparison to the parts that originally did the conquering.

And the parts that originally did the conquering had themselves been repeatedly conquered by the Mongols and other steppe peoples (hence the wall).

There are many examples of prosperous states today that had nothing to do with colonization, and many example of colonial powers that profited little from their colonization. As there are many examples of colonized states that have gone on to be prosperous. The correlation is weak. There are far stronger causal relationships between things like property rights, trade practices, educational systems and prosperity than there is between colonialization and prosperity.

[peter12]

I would think that Itse is probably talking about under-developed rural areas relative to the explosion of wealth in Chinese cities?

If so, this is a world-wide trend, and has very little to do with colonialism.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Itse is this you?

You were more interesting when you were pretending to contribute something useful.