Yadda,

Quote:


He is... but that doesn't mean he is not in need of solutions for how to manage his affairs.

Quote:


I know a lot of Islamic converts here in Australia, and even others from overseas, and even some entire organisations based around converts, yet never once have I met one single convert that was a prison inmate (that he's divulged anyway), and the vast majority of them don't appear to me to be the kind of people who'd find themselves in gaol. Add to this the fact that the majority of converts are women, and your "theory" starts falling apart. If it makes you feel better about the dire state of your religion and the many leaving it, then feel free.

Now when it comes to "born again Christians", I don't think I've ever met a single one who was not an ex-druggie or ex-alcoholic etc. So I wouldn't go throwing stones around in that little glass house of yours.

Since you are the apostle of falsehood, it doesn't surprise me you'd delude yourself with these kinds of fabrications.

Quote:


Although that might be the state of places like Africa today, the fact is that when they became Muslim, and for the first 1000 years of being Muslim literacy wasn't low, they weren't starving, the regimes were just and fair. So again, this half of your "theory" is shot also.

In fact most of Africa was very prosperous and enlightened until the Europeans arrived. And like every land they touched, they drained it of all it's life and turned it into a hellhole.

Besides... aren't most of the world's Christians living in squalour in Latin America and Africa anyway?? Again, don't throw those stones around in your glass house. And Latin America NEVER saw prosperity or advanced civilisation, so you don't even have that to cling onto.

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:



And what the hell motivated that clinging to a clearly disastrous thing if not the culture of the people who clinged to it! WHat the hell is Islam if not a set of ideas congealed into a set of cultures growing put of it, being motivated by it, putting their confidence into it?  Demonstrably, as you yourself point out, there is no material benefit in clinging to it, there has't been for centuries. Yet cling to it they still do.

You could not make your argument if you were not speaking from outside Islam, but still out of a culture. Your every non-mathematical utterance and thought is culture-bound - you cannot but speak out of your culture.

I can't see how you can find my point about  "values, ability, tenacity, art, science - all the stuff that makes up its sense and understanding of itself" to mean "pretty pictures". Even on the level of rhetoric this is pretty stupid.

Culture, the idea you introduced, is not as formulaic as physical science. If you are looking for positivist formulations when discussing it then you are a complete pillock. If you are pretending or proposing that whatever cannot be formulated scientifically is not real and therefore it is  'magic', then you are an old-fashioned, stuck-in-the-past dusty old pillock. To imply that things are either positive and formulaic (scientistic) or nebulous is too stupid for words.

So I really hope that I am somehow missing a crucial bit of what you are trying to get at.

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:


Confidence does not cause dominance in itself. It is a necessary but not a sufficient thing. There is nothing circular or interchangable here.

Quote:


No, it is not going in circles - see above. You need more wealth and power to be confident.
Being surrounded by warring states may make make the timid nervous but the confident will be simply be prudent. See the ancient Greek city states.  They squabbled constantly but were united against their barbarian enemy, the Persians. And the Greeks are still far more dominant culturally (oh, magic) to this day then their suppsedly richer and more powerful Persian adversary

Renaissance Italy is another example of constant war among confident cities, producing a lasting legacy even when their material wealth and power is long gone.

OK Soren, I'll do the first one for you.

Perhaps the most influential aspect of Bristish culture on history was the willingness of the Britons to give up without a fight. When it comes to waiving the white flag, no-one else comes close. What other empire in history, at the hieght of it's power, so readily gave up it's territories as soon as the locals started looking at them the wrong way? Perhaps America, if you call it an empire, comes close, in that it wants to get rid of Afghanistan ASAP. Anyway, back on topic, I think a quote from the British deputy in India would be helpful:

OK chaps, no need to be ungentlemanly. It's been a great holdiay here, but I really think it's time I got back home to my mother. I miss her, and the wonderful English culture, with blurred pictures of gardens, and greasy fish and chips for supper, and no sun, whinging locals, baked beans on toast for breakfast with a shrivelled sausage, the cold, wet, endless winter, the snobbery. So I say toodle pip, and you absolutely must come back to England for a visit some time, you'd love it there. I hope you will keep selling us your tea, and as a parting gesture of goodwill, here's a free savings account.

It may have been a bit hard for their ego to swallow, but even today, centuries after England was returned to a bit player in international politics, London still reaps massive fortunes just for being a historical centre of banking and trade. Where other empires overreached, crashed, and were destroyed by their enemies leaving bitterness and poverty, England milked it's reign for all it was worth.

Many of the first modern economists were from Britain and northern Europe, and they were some of the first to seriously push the idea that trade alone was a path to wealth, rather than a short term means of aquiring sufficient resources to launch a 'take all' military conquest. It is a great credit to the British that they adopted this model, rather than the traditional long term opppression that was the hallmark of the great historical empires. Even in the lead up to the first world war, many European countries were attempting to build a tradional style empire across Africa, and the tensions that arose contributed to WWI. Yet Britain had centuries earlier adopted a philosophy that maintaining good will and trade on an equal basis, or even an inferior basis, is better than trade with submissive nations at the cost of a big, active militray. This contrast is perhaps most stark in comparison with the Islamic empire. The remnants today - middle eastern Muslims, are still fighting battles they lost five hundred years ago. They are still losing battles they have been losing for centuries. Yet England gave up after 10 minutes, and has been reaping the benefits ever since. It had no problem with being exposed as the skinny, pasty white kid who could only pretend to be a bully. A bit like that kid from the Harry Potter movies.

Perhaps what appears to be culture has it's origins in geography. I would image that to survive in the middle east, with so many powerful nations and empires in all directions, you would have to be the sort of tribe that other tribes know to leave in peace because you will be an absolute pain in the arse for centuries if you are crossed. In contrast, England was at the end of the east-west fertile band over Asia, Europe and North Africa, and not a particularly pleasant place to conquer. The weather and remoteness was a good substitute for the stubbornness of the people of the middle east.

An interesting comparison can also be made with Japan. It is simlar in being an Island of suitable size to be a major power, just offshore from the right landmass, at the other end. It only lacks the divided mainland - China was a far more formiddable foe that the historical kingdoms of Europe and totally dominated the region. However, they did rise to almost take over the world, then was beaten back. Then rose again a short time later economically, then shrunk back, but only slightly.

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2009 at 9:07pm:



Whoa - " a great credit to the British "?!?!. You mean to the British geography? Weather? Germs? Guns? Steel? No.

You post is a demontration of the centrality of culture.

I really am at a loss - what are you trying to say, other than you found Diamond's book interesting.

Statements like "Perhaps the most influential aspect of Bristish culture on history was the willingness of the Britons to give up without a fight. When it comes to waiving the white flag, no-one else comes close" are just plain nutty.
Willingness to give up without a fight? Every fight? Of course not. They did not give up when they were in the right. Ever. 1939-45? Any bells?
On the other hand, not wishing to dominate against people's expressed wishes is not the same. To equate them is the nuttiness.

FD,

Quote:


Are we living in the same plane of existence???

For almost 100 years the Indians rebelled, revolted and did everything they could to try and rid themselves of the British.

During that 100 years the British also tried, unsuccessfully, to annex their Indian realm into neighbouring Afghanistan. They didn't give up without a fight, or 3 wars to be exact.

Likewise it took them about 50 years to realise their presence in Egypt was really not wanted (ie. their entire occupation). The first mass demonstrations against their presence begun in the 1880's and continued right up until they withdrew every single last soldier in the 1950's.

Quote:


Sprint, your two supposed examples don't add up to "Every country", and neither of them was conquered by Britain. Besides Germany and Japan were huge powerhouses prior to their wars, about all we could say is the U.S permitted them to keep being powerhouses (although they severely limited their military capabilities to ensure they never became a military threat as a result of their economic power).

As for establishing that British or U.S invasion and domination of a country is an agent that causes it to become prosperous, this is nothing but a deluded self-aggrandising fantasy on your part. Those countries were hugely prosperous already.