19300, western civilizations|
Posted by guest, Sat Jan-20-01 11:22 AM
I think the question of whether western civilazation is primairly responsible for the condition of the world is kind of a silly one, and speaks to the effectiveness of psychological war campaigns. I think that it's blatantly obivous. For example, no one ever speaks of Native American Civiations. Why is this, many of the American Agricultural methods that were adapted later by Enlightment thinkers orginated with the Natives, who through study of the eart (what some might term geolgy, chemistry, meterology, and biology) had developed effective and sure fire ways of cultivating many of the vegtables that are sold and eaten today. They had community structres, that although not as academically dilenated were still complex and intellegnet. In fact, one could dig in the history books (not influenced by western perspective) and find that many of the westerners who lived amoung the natives found themselves adapting (thier culture). Of course, western thinking doens't allow any type of perspective other than it's own (really look at your textbooks) and so that shouold come as no suprise.
One thing that really gets me is that people still argue the "anyone could have done this" perspective which may be true for Japan. It is true that the Mongolian Empire under the leadership of Ghengis Khan conqured lare parts of Asia and Italy. It is true that his army killed many. It is not true that his army subjected teh conqured to centturies of slaery. It is not true that they developed in depth "scienfically supported resons for their inferiority). You need only view the orginal texts of such European writers such as Montisque to know that these men viewed their civialization as superior. At a time when it was NOT established that thier colonies would exist all over the world. Montisque referred to blacks as savages and indians as brutes. He did so with nor regard for the accomplishments of the Natives, of Male, Ghana, and Songhai, or of Egypt. He did so without knowing of the Mayans or the Aztecs. He had littlle true knowledge of the world as it truly existed, but we forgive his ignorance while we simultaneously condmen our own, as in the studies of the revered socioligist and revered legal philosopher the civilizations and accomplishments of darker hued people were trampled over. This is unacceptable, yet it is accepted everyday.
There is no denying the poison of western thinking.
One question that arose was the seperation of the poisons of western thinking from things that are beneficial in it. Let me be clear in saying that a complete decimation of western thinking and culture is pretty much impossibe. we exist now with the Native culture of a thousand years ago, the Greek Culture of two thousand years ago, the african culture of six hundred agos, etc. We are an assimilative speicies, and what we absorb, we typically do not release. Nevertheless, it is not impossible to shed the poisons of western civilization, though it is difficult to determine whether or not that is something we will see in our era. But it is a worthy cause. Much like a grown man still living in his teens, the usefulness of our western "adolencence" is now over. And perhaps what we term revoultion is better refferred to as evoultion, as a speices, I think we owe ourselves that much. I do not necassarily agree with a violent revolution, becasue as long as it is a violent revolution, the real problem (force being the end all be all of power) won't be solved. However, if being capable of being stronger thn someone else is always a possiblity, I pose this question, what should we do should the revolution succed to ensure that centralization of power, deconstruction of cultures, and disinformation cease to be.
This was a lot of stuff, I don't even know if I made sense, but oh well, I shall return.