just like we were morally superior to niggers

keep at it patrick, perhaps you'll manage to provoke a holy war with your hate speech. wouldn't that be satisfying?

Do you know who this guy is Patrick? Here's part of his Wikipedia entery. It's rather long but since it gives some of the detail of legal investigations of Berlusconi it needs to be.

Silvio Berlusconi undoubtedly has a rather long record of judicial trials, as several crimes have been alleged to him or his firms (see also the following subsection on Berlusconi's trials), including false accounting, tax fraud, corruption and bribery of police officers and judges. Some of Berlusconi's close collaborators, friends and firm managers have been found guilty of related crimes, notably his younger brother, Paolo, who in 2002 accepted to pay 52 million euros as a plea bargain to local authorities for various charges including corruption and undue appropriation. However, no definitive conviction sentence has ever been issued on Silvio Berlusconi himself for any of the trials which have concluded so far; in some cases he has been fully acquitted of the alleged charges, in others he has been acquitted with dubitative formula (not proven), or he was acquitted because the statute of limitations expired before a definitive sentence could be issued; in one case a previously granted amnesty extinguished the crime (perjury) before the sentence came into effect. The Italian legal system allows the statute of limitations to continue to run during the course of the trial. Consequently, the dilatory tactics adopted by Berlusconi's attorneys (including repeated motions for change of venue) served to nullify the pending charges.

Some of the suspects on Berlusconi's person arise from real or perceived blank spots in his past. Notably, in 1981 a scandal arose on the discovery by the police of Licio Gelli's secret freemasonry lodge (Propaganda Due, or P2) aiming to move the Italian political system in an authoritarian direction to oppose communism. A list of names was found of adherents of P2, which included members of the secret services and some prominent personalities from the political, industrial, military and press elite, among which Silvio Berlusconi, who was just starting to gain popularity as the founder and owner of "Canale 5" TV network. The P2 lodge was dissolved by the Italian parliament in december 1981 and a law was passed declaring similar organizations illegal, but no specific crimes were alleged to individual members of P2. Berlusconi later (1989) sued for libel three journalists who had written an article hinting at his involvement in financiary crimes and in this occasion he declared in court that he had joined the P2 lodge "only a very short time before the scandal broke" and "he had not even paid the entry fee". Such statements, however, conflicted with the findings of the parliamentary commission appointed to investigate the lodge's activity, with material evidence, and even with previous testimony of Berlusconi, all of which showing that he had actually been a member of P2 since 1978 and had indeed paid a 100,000 Italian liras entry fee. Because of this he was indicted for perjury, but the crime was extinguished by the 1989 amnesty.

Berlusconi's career as an entrepreneur is also often questioned by his detractors. The allegations made against him generally include suspects about the extremely fast increase of his activity as a constructon entrepreneur in years 1961-63, hinting at the possibility that in those years he received money from unknown and possibly illegal sources. These accusations are regarded by Berlusconi and his supporters as empty slander, trying to undermine Berlusconi's reputation of a self-made man. Frequently cited by opponents are also events dating to the 1980s, including supposed "favor exchanges" between Berlusconi and the former prime minister Bettino Craxi, indicted in 1990-91 for various corruption charges; and even possible connections to the Italian Mafia, the latter accusations arising mostly from the curious circumstance that he employed for two years, as a stableman in his Arcore villa, the wanted mafia boss Vittorio Mangano. Berlusconi acknowledges a personal friendship only to Craxi, and of course denies any ties to the Mafia, stating that he was absolutely not aware of who Mangano really was when he employed him. Heated debate on this issue was recently (2004) triggered again when a Forza Italia senator and long time friend of Berlusconi, Marcello Dell'Utri, was sentenced to 9 years by the Palermo court on charge of "external association to the Mafia", a sentence on which Berlusconi refused to comment.

On some occasions, which raised a strong upheaval in the Italian political opposition, laws passed by the Berlusconi administration have effectively delayed ongoing trials on him, allowing the statute of limitations to expire, or stopped them entirely. Relevant examples are the law reducing punishment for all cases of false accounting; the new law on international rogatories, which made his Swiss bank records unusable in court against him; the law on legitimate suspicion, which allowed defendants to request their cases to be moved to another court if they believe that the local judges are biased against them; and most importantly the lodo Maccanico law, passed in June 2003, which granted the highest five state officers, including the Prime Minister, immunity from prosecution while in office. This law froze Berlusconi's position in the SME-Ariosto trial in which he was accused of having corrupted judges in previous legal rulings regarding his partecipation in the public auction of the state-owned food company SME in the 1980s. However, the trial was not frozen for other defendants, and the former lawyer of Berlusconi's main firm (Fininvest) and former Italian defence minister, Cesare Previti, was sentenced to 5 years although the crime was reduced from corruption of judges to simple corruption. In January 2004 the Lodo Maccanico was nullified by the Constitutional court as it was ruled to be in conflict with the Italian constitution. Subsequently Berlusconi has declared his intent to re-introduce the law using the correct procedure for constitutional modification. Because of these legislative acts, political opposers accuse Berlusconi of passing ad personam laws, to protect himself from legal charges; Berlusconi and his allies, on the other hand, mantain that such laws are consistent with everyone's right to a rapid and just trial, and with the principle of presumption of innocence (garantismo); furthermore, they claim that Berlusconi is subject to a judiciary persecution, a political witch hunt orchestrated by politicized (left-wing) judges.

For such reasons, Berlusconi and his government have an ongoing quarrel with the Italian judiciary, which reached its peak in 2003 when Berlusconi commented to a foreign journalist that judges are "mentally disturbed" and "anthropologically different from the rest of the human race", remarks that he later claimed he meant to be directed to specific judges only, and of a humorous nature. More seriously, the Berlusconi administration has long been planning a judiciary reform intended to limit the arbitrarine

And here's a list of the trials he's had and is having

Completed processes False testimony on Propaganda 2 In 1990 Berlusconi was declared theoretically guilty of perjury by the appeal court of Venice for false testimony on his affiliation to the freemason lodge "Propaganda 2", commonly known as "P2"; however the court did not proceed to a punishment sentence because the crime had been extinguished by the 1989 amnesty.

Bribing a member of the Financial Police (corruption) First Court: sentenced to jail (2 years and 9 months) for four bribes. Appeal court: the statute of limitations expired for three of the charges, an acquitted was given on the fourth with dubitative formula (similar to Scottish law not proven verdict).

All Iberian 1 (illegally financing a political party) First Court: sentenced to jail (2 years and 4 months) for paying 21 billion lire (about 10 million Euro) to Bettino Craxi via an offshore bank account codenamed "All Iberian". Appeal Court: the statute of limitations expired before the appeal was completed so Silvio Berlusconi was acquitted.

Medusa Cinema (false accounting) First Court: sentenced to jail (16 months) for false accounting of 10 billion Lire (about 5 million Euro) in some of Silvio Berlusconi's bank accounts. Appeal Court: acquitted on the charge with dubitative formula (not proven) .

Lodo Mondadori (corrupting a judge) Appeal Court: statute of limitations expired before the appeal was completed so Silvio Berlusconi was acquitted.

[edit] Trials still running (September 2004) All Iberian 2 (false accounting) Trial suspended: both the European Court of Justice and the Italian Constitutional Court are examining the new laws on social crimes approved by Berlusconi's Government. If the new laws are accepted, the crime statute of limitations will have expired.

Macherio estates (embezzlement, tax fraud and false accounting) First Court: acquitted for embezzlement and tax fraud, the statute of limitations expired before a verdict was reached on the two cases of false accounting. Appeal Court: acquitted for embezzlement, tax fraud and the first case of false accounting; statute of limitations expired for the second.

Lentini affair (false accounting / 5 millions Euro paid secretly to Torino football club for buying the player Luigi Lentini) First court: The statute of limitations expired for the charge. Appeal court: still running.

Fininvest media group consolidated (false accounting / 750 million Euro of illegal (black) funds stored by Fininvest in 64 offshore societies) The statute of limitations expired due to the new laws on false accounting recently approved by Berlusconi's government.

SME-Ariosto (corrupting a judge) At the beginning, the trial SME-Ariosto involved both Cesare Previti and Silvio Berlusconi. Then, the Italian government approved a new law, the so called "Lodo Maccanico" (also known as "Lodo Schifani"): this law gives immunity to the five highest state officers (premier, president of the Republic, Senate's president, Deputy Chamber's president, Constitutional Court's president). In order to avoid the complete suspension of the trial, the Court of Milan has split it in two parts, one regarding Cesare Previti, and the other regarding Silvio Berlusconi. The Cesare Previti's part of the trial resulted in a guilty verdict, while the other part (regarding Silvio Berlusconi) was closed because of the statute of limitations, and not with a innocence verdict. Actually, the Constitutional Court declared that the "Lodo Maccanico" violates articles n. 3 and 34 of the Italian Constitution (Sentence n. 120, 2004).

SME-Ariosto (false accounting) Trial suspended: the European Court of Justice is examining the new Italian laws on social crimes (see trial on All Iberian 2 above).

Hi Brit, Nice to see you around, and as usual what you posted is really interesting.

I'm not surprised at all, certainly Berlusconi looks more like a latin american politician.

However, the fact he's a crook, doesn't mean he's always wrong. I saw the film "Downfall" (Untergang)a few weeks ago. On that film a collapsing Hitler said that western democracies were decadent unlike the disciplinated eastern felllows (then communists). The point is that western democracies tolerate many "decadent behaviours" but give the necessary freedoms to progress and achieve great historical advancements.

These Berlusconian adventures are public and this guy is out of jail because he hires the best lawyers money can buy; but, if you're egyptian, iranian, pakistani, syrian, lybian, algerian, azeri, sudanese, saudi arabian etc..... and question your leaders.... you may get expelled, jailed or murdered. Leaders of this countries do not hire lawyers; they silence their opposition. These leaders censor and control the media. Oh yes!!!! They're not decadent. Iranians hang people that commit adultery. Rock music is forbidden is Saudi Arabia. Gays and other "Abobinations" may get stoned (killed by stones, not drug consumption). etc.....

Well, Brit, i'm with Pat, i prefer these decadent and corrupt western countries.

After all...there're more chances to erradicate corruption in a democratic country than in an authocracy.

Well.....I see that matt let his racism be known with his false analogy.

Brit....I don't know a damned thing about this Italian dude....but I DID notice that he's been convicted of nothing that's been alleged. Shady? Probably.....but the gist of the initial paragraphs was that he's been to court numerous times and has been ALLEGED to have committed crimes.

However, anyone like matt that thinks muslim countries are morally superior or that there's equal morality than the civilized west hasn't been to any of those muslim countries and experienced their brand of morality to educate themselves on the matter. Good job on the racism though.

Heh...I like Berlusconi..even if he is a corrupt, thieving, womanizing, amoral jackass. If you despise PC speach-police as much as I do, his comments are delightfully hillarious. He's my 2nd favorite European leader.

Whether he's talking about how wall street investors should invest in more Italian companies because they have the most hot, sexy promiscuous secrataries per capita, implying Schroeder (who's had 4 wives or so himself) knows a thing or two about landing woman himself, saying a foriegn political leader might enjoy a night in bed with his wife, or claiming that life is better now because there are almost no communists left in Italy.

Remeber, Italy is the country that also elected a former porno actress to be an MP, who offered to have sex with Saddam Hussein as part of a diplomatic agreement to allow weapons inspections.

I'm fairly certain he is rather corrupt. He hasn't been convincted of much because he has a certain degree of immunity from prosecution...But in Europe, if your a high ranking politician who ISNT clinging to office-granted immunity to avoid jail, I think you're in the minority. Just look at Chirac.

I would not vote for him for office in my country though...And although I'd like to see him stay PM of Italy, I'd understand if they boot him (which I think they will soon). The fact they elected him in the first place is something akin to if we elected Donald Trump president.

At any rate...He's no Vaclav Klaus. THERE's a guy I WOULD vote for, for president of the USA.

Or Vaclav Havel for that matter, though he's no longer a politician.

How do the czech's keep electing such astounding Presidents and PM's but continue to be plagued with such a horrible parliment?

"Or Vaclav Havel for that matter, though he's no longer a politician."

Any guy who names a revolution after the Velvet Underground is alright in my book.

That's fully right Sarge.

One of the "mildest" leaders in the muslim world (Egypt's Hosni Mubarak) has ruled his country for a quarter century without running elections.

The "most moderate, progressive and secular" muslim country in the world (Turkey)has murdered, harrased and prosecuted its religious & ethnic minorities (including other muslims) all through the XX century and gone inpune.

I guess only Um Yeah & Co would prefer some of these distinguished leaders (Saddam Hussein, King Fahd, Assad, Khamenei, Khaddafi, Mubarak, Musharraf etc...) to Berlusconi & President Bush.

Sarge - Could you point out to me where I stated that muslim countries were morally superior?

Declaring countries, cultures, or religions as morally superior or inferior is nothing but an act of egocentricism.

Yes, you did go to the best high school and you did have the best mascot. Go team go!

Every country, culture, and religion has had its failings. Designating superiority does nothing but incite division and hatred.

Alberto - Stop confusing the people and their culture (muslims) with their leaders and extremists.

Matt...seeing as your non-point was unclear and you failed to notice that I left available 2 options for your stance....why don't you just go ahead and read my post again.

Pointing out the truth is nothing more than egocentrism....OK. C all it whatever you want, but it's still true. We're not compring highschools, idiot.

Free western countries are morally superior. Got an argument that they are not? Or is it all racism all the time?

Sarge - What about when free western countries support brutal dictators in the middle east?

We're good buddies with the Saudi royal family.

Anytime you start to think you're morally superior, you're in trouble.

If Americans value freedom so much, why did we force Indians to walk from their homes to reservations thousands of miles away in the name of progress?

I guess they made the mistake of getting in the way of the our god-given freedom.

Now, I know it's not as simple as the white man slaughtering the indians and taking their land, but it's damn close. I'm not condeming it, or saying we're evil because of it, but I'd think twice about calling ourselves morally superior.

We can get into the whole slavery thing, Mai Lai massacre, acts of "terrorism" during the civil and revolutionary wars, etc...

And in Europe, there was that whole Holocaust thing.

You’re right Matt.

Let’s not confuse leaders & cultures.

I won’t tell you that western culture is superior, but I can tell you it has advanced more and it has more propensity to advance faster & further than other cultures including muslim culture.

The reasons are neither racial nor ethnic. It’s just consequence of a Thinking Structure that has evolved through centuries of history.

1)Greek Philosophy introduced the concept of explaining things through logical explanation, not by mythic ones. 2)Roman Legal Thinking is the base of a dynamic justice administration and enforcement systems, legal equality, and the existence of legal frames. 3)Judeo-Christian Tradition brought the concept of a non sacred nature, onthological equality and bashed the notion of fate controlled existence (Muslim DO LIVE under this FATE notion). 4)Medieval Germanic Military Tradition is the base of present western concepts of honor, professional ethic, national pride, and personal advancement, not to mention that the military tradition by itself (along with Spartan and Roman military theory) make western military forces far more efficient than other culture’s armed forces. 5)Rationalist Philosophy reinforced and established reasoning as ONLY source of knowledge, hence modern science appeared and liberalism, and idealistic concepts of illustration re-appeared (like democratic ideals). 6)Industrial Revolution was a consequence of the previous point, and became the cradle of concepts as modern management, economy fast technological continuous advancement etc…

The story could go further but it’s no intentioned to be a lecture, just to illustrate that Pat & Sarge are fully right in their statements, and yes, nowadays western culture is by far more advanced than muslim culture, MAYBE in the times of the Crusades (X-XII AD), it was otherwise, let’s say that in the viking’s days (VII-IX) it was; but not in the last 500 years. Fully agree, it’s not perfect, it’s not amazingly fair & just; but it’s better (at least I prefer it).

Well gee matt...wanna go down THAT red herring? Who our government makes economic and military deals with has NOTHING to do with our SOCIETY'S MORALITY.

Tom, you wanna come into THIS century? Are you actually painting our current society with crimes committed by a few people in Viet Nam? How far you wanna go back? How about 14000 years. My ancestors were quite brutal back then. Would you care to come to the present? As in, the premise of this argument is that western society IS morally superior....not that it has always been so.

Alberto - Apple pie. We also have Apple pie, so we're better.

You can put that nonsense about western thinking back into your pie hole. They were the ones preserving the history of the ancient thinkers while we were going through the middle ages.

Where do we get our numbers from?

Still, this line of conversation is silly and I won't take part in it.

Baseball. We also have baseball.

Hi Alberto,

Thanks for the kind words.

No because someone is a crook doesn’t mean everything they say is wrong. I quote Georing a few weeks ago when discussing patriotism and I agreed with what he had to say. I understand Hitler believed Berlin was in Germany, so do I – so while I agree with Hitler this doesn’t mean I think everything he said or did was correct, it a fallacy to say you agree with this dreadful person because you believe they said or did something was right. However we should look at someone’s background and that’s what I was doing with Berlusconi. Don’t forget this is a man who was having difficulty with the law so changed the law so that he couldn’t be prosecuted while he was Prime Minister – meaning that the statute of limitations means he’ll never be prosecuted, oh and the people who were also in the dock with him were found guilty and sent down! He has history of misusing people. You talk about freedom to criticise the leader being curtailed in some countries. Berlusconi is in control of 90% of Italian national television – yes he controls his own media empire and effectively the state television. And he uses that power More from Wikipedea

Berlusconi's extensive control of the media has been linked to claims that Italy's media shows limited freedom of expression. The Freedom of the Press 2004 Global Survey, an annual study issued by the American organization Freedom House, downgraded Italy's ranking from 'Free' to 'Partly Free' on the basis of Berlusconi's influence over RAI, a ranking which, in "Western Europe" was shared only with Turkey (2005). Reporters Without Borders states that in 2004, "The conflict of interests involving prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and his vast media empire was still not resolved and continued to threaten news diversity". In April 2004, the International Federation of Journalists joined the criticism, objecting to the passage of a law vetoed by Carlo Azeglio Ciampi in 2003, which critics believe is designed to protect Berlusconi's alleged 90% control of national media. Berlusconi's influence over RAI became evident when in Sofia he expressed his views on the journalists Enzo Biagi, Michele Santoro, and comedian Daniele Luttazzi after his satiric behaviour and his interview with journalist Marco Travaglio The four never appeared in any TV shows since then. Left-winged politicians and media refers to this episode as the Sofia Diktat. The TV broadcasting of a satirical program called RAIOT was censored in November 2003 after the comedian Sabina Guzzanti ade outspoken criticism of Berlusconi media empire. Mediaset, one of Berlusconi's companies, sued the Italian state broadcasting company RAI because of Guzzanti show asking 20 million Euro for "damages" and from November 2003 she was forced to appear only in theatres around Italy.

Last bit from Wikipedia

On another occasion, he stated that "Mussolini's regime hadn't killed a single person" and that Mussolini "just used to send opposers on holiday" thus apparently denying or dismissing a long series of fascist crimes, from the murder of Giacomo Matteotti to the infamous fascist concentration camps (Rab, Gonars, etc.). Berlusconi later claimed that he did not mean to white-wash Mussolini, that he only reacted to a comparison, which he felt unfair, between the fascist dictator and Saddam Hussein.

Now do you want to suggest this guy should be your next President? Would I want him over the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Iran etc – yes of course, but I’m hoping these aren’t the two options open to me.

Hi Sarge,

Shady? I think a little more than shady.

Hi MJ,

Yes OK some of it’s funny. I didn’t know Cicciolina had offered to sleep with Saddam – I googled to see the quote - if you enter the words “porn” “Italian” and “MP” (I couldn’t get anywhere guessing the spelling of her name) be carefully what you click on next. I found a pair of lovelies from her –

"My breasts have never done anyone any harm, while bin Laden's war has caused thousands of victims." -- October 2002

"I am here not showing my breasts. Now I am speaking about poor people so it is not necessary -- not because I don't have beautiful breasts ... even now. But it's not necessary showing because poor people have no interest in my breasts." -- 2002

But as you’ve said you wouldn’t want to vote for them.

Hi Tom,

Was the Velvet Revolution really named after the Velvet Underground? I’m a big fan of the Velvet Underground and saw them at Glastonbury in the 90’s.

-------------------------------------------------

Last thing – An update on the London bombs - the bus driver who was driving the bus that went bang went back to work today, driving the same route, obviously. Like I said bombs don’t work on Londoners.

This century? Well, there is the dropping of the atomic bombs on japan as well as the fire bombings of Tokyo... and before we get into how many lives it saved, we instantly incerated hundreds and thousands of CIVILIANS.

It's basically the same strategy as what terrorists are trying to do now, except we had much better weapons.

Alberto hit the nail on the head (though I don't know if Judeo-Christianity exactly "trashed" the idea of a fate controlled existence since both Augustine and Aquinas thought to varying degrees our lives are fated) in the way our culture is more enlightened or advanced. I wouldn't say it's morally superior. We may have a better form of government that allows for greater personal freedom than mideast governments, but i have a problem bringing the whole "moral" word into it. Morality is a personal thing.

And, isn't half our country made up of god-hating, queer liberals anyway? how can we be morally superior with those ranks in our midst?

apparently, god is taking care of that:

http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_hurricanekatrina.html

It's evolution of thinking Matt.

It's not only apple pie, Base-Ball,....., MP3, Chewing Gum, Rock & Roll, Salsa, Airplanes, Double Whoppers, Cable TV, X-Box, Microwave Ovens, Comics, Pizza, Pasta, Soccer, Soda, GPS, blue jeans, motorcycles, etc...

what's the latest arabic invention or "gift to the world??? medieval astrolabius, dhows, jihad, al-qaida???

NOW I see....we got our actual numbers from non-western society hundreds of years ago, so they are nor moral equals. Way to go with the logic.

Way to go with the bus driver.

NOW I see....we got our actual numbers from non-western society hundreds of years ago, so they are now moral equals. Way to go with the logic.

Way to go with the bus driver.

Wow Tom...now Truman was nothing more than a terrorist? Good thinking. Shall we go through all the atrocities and perceived atrocities in the past for the whole world and line 'em up and make an assumption based on personal feelings? Or shall we look at RIGHT FUCKING NOW? "WE MAY HAVE A BETTER FORM OF GOVERNMENT?" What country do YOU live in?

Brit, according to my freshman year western civ teacher, he did. Havel's also a big fan of the band, so it makes sense. This is from a VU web site:

"And I haven't even mentioned Vaclav Havel yet. One of those few copies of Velvet Underground and Nico showed up in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The impact of that album on Czech culture can be noted by the fact that the overthrow of the Communists in the late-80s was known as the "Velvet Revolution." Havel, who was named the first president of the emergent Czech Republic, told Velvet's songwriter Lou Reed, upon meeting him for the first time, "Did you know that I am president because of you?"

Good point Tom, how familiar are you with theology?

I studied in a Catholic University so in my college years (actually not many years ago)i had to read quite a lot about St. Thomas of Aquino & St. Agustine (a doctor & a father of the church respectively). This fate you talk about is something named predestination, is not fate as we understand and it's related to Grace, in a very swift resume it can be explain this way: You're free to decide and act correctly or incorrectly. Correctliness by itself is no going to save your soul because you need grace which is given by God (upon your acts) not by yourself. Since God is omnipresent (he's not subordinated to time) he knows in advance wheather you'll get doomed or redimed (From the Suma Theologica*), but this "fate of yours" is what you build with your decitions, not that you're previously fated.

The Suma Theologica is also a rational excersise to demostrate God's existence; further philisophers like Descartes and Kant (Critic of Practical Reason*) made other rational exersises to make same kinds of demonstrations.

*Not shure if titles are correctly written since i'm translating them 100% literally from spanish.

Look at it plainly, Sarge. Truman attacked civilian populations to influence the foreign policy of Japan. Isn't that was al qaeda is doing against the US?

Now, the difference is Truman and the US were acting defensively, and were not the initial aggressors. of course, you ask AQ and they'll say we were the initial aggressors in our current war in places like Iran in the 50s, but whatever.

is vietnaim too far in the past? Did we have a moral right to go in, stay and escalate that war? Was that the "right" thing to do?

Same with the current Iraq war. Is starting a war unnessarily and setting off period of great violence and bloodshed in Iraq for our own national security the moral thing to do? I mean, it's open for debate.

"Good point Tom, how familiar are you with theology?"

Grade school through college was Catholic Education for me (high school and college under the jesuits). I studied Augustine in particular in college. fascinating guy. From what I recall, he said we're all damned except for a few fortunates ones who receive grace from god (not surprisingly, himself being among that rank); and Aquinas said we're all predisposed to be drawn to doing good, but can falter and take different paths to that end... something like that.

I'm actually reading Confessions again. I find theology, especially catholic theology, endlessly fascinating.

Tom, you're getting bogged down in specific foreign policy decisions of our government...whereas, if you look at what the Italilan actually said, he's right-on. We are morally better BECAUSE we have respect for human, religious, and political rights.....BECAUSE we have, at our core.......freedom. PLUS, we look to take our civilisation forward....they look to stay right where they are. Take a look at the civilisation you're ignoring in this 2-sided comparison and try to say the same. Are they looking to expand upon human rights that they are lacking? They looking to expand freedoms of ANY kind? You can list all the atrocities and perceived atrocities that we have committed all you want....and I can list all the ones on the other side I want and we can both ignore the truth of the comparison, but the truth will still stand.

Interesting Tom

The college i attended is run by Opus Dei which among Catholics is considered to be the conservative branch while Jesuits are considered to be the liberal one.

Mmmm this very few redimed concept is not catholic, it's Jehova's Witnesses (they believe that only 440.000 will be redimed). Yeap, Tom, St. Thomas said that men are born good (which in fact must be true considering mankind is the masterpiece of creation), but St. Agustine, (precisely in Confessions) inferred the contrary (that children are evil).

Now, all this this Mai Lai, Hiroshima discussion etc... If you as American think it's wrong or right, that's good, because your opinion contributes to create a better judgement of these things. Patrick has written several posts (most of them excellent ones) explaining how in the muslim culture hate speech and hate behaviour is systematic.

I've read Patrick and Sarge critisizing muslims; but i don't remember them writing things like "kill them", "exterminate them" or so... just "beware of them" while muslims from their quran to average day speech ask to "kill the kuffar", "kill the crusader" etc...

In the place called "Palestine" there're young boys more willing to be "martyrs" than to be doctors, teachers, mechanics, businessmen, soccer stars, etc... Is this "moral superiority"??!!!

The statement "We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation" is particularly poor because of the use of the word civilization.

Yes, the west has more advanced technology and more just governments.

HOWEVER - the word 'civilization' encompasses much more than those two small facets. In particular, it includes culture and religion. I don't see how someone could prove one culture or religion superior to another.

"Truman attacked civilian populations to influence the foreign policy of Japan. Isn't that was al qaeda is doing against the US?"

Wonderfully mindless moral equivalency Tom. Are you in a contest with Scum Yeah and Matt the feeble minded? If so you are certainly giving it your best shot.

Oh good grief.

Why do liberals have a tendency to immediately equate 'better' with 'perfect'?? No, seriously, I'm asking.

America or any other country on the planet is not morally perfect, but that does not mean that all cultures are equal either. Better just means better, not best.

If you intend to bicker this point by rattling off ammoral acts by countries tit for tat in some attempt to prove they balance out even at the end of the list....you're going to be here for a f'ng long long time.

How many people from the west emmigrate to countries like egypt where female circumcision is still a problem?

How many people from countries like egypt emmigrate to the west?

And why is that?

Let me guess....: They're poor.

Ok....And why are they so damn poor?

Let me guess again: Their politicians are more corrupt then ours.

Yup....and why do they tolerate such corrupt politicians in the first place???

Have you ever watched deliverance? You're going to tell me the culture of incestous bucktoothed appalachian virginians who rape pigs and 'aint never had no use fer dem books' is equivallent to the culture found amongst those living in New York?

How about a 'culture' that promotes violence, reprimands hard work, reprimands education, promotes drug use and objectifies women? That's morally unjudgable for you, is it?

>>You're going to tell me the culture of incestous bucktoothed appalachian virginians who rape pigs and 'aint never had no use fer dem books' is equivallent to the culture found amongst those living in New York?

No, and those fucking pig raping Bush voters are dragging this country down the drain.

>>How about a 'culture' that promotes violence, reprimands hard work, reprimands education, promotes drug use and objectifies women?

Rush Limbaugh?

MJohnson - Why is it that conservatives are always trying to justify acts of violence against anyone different?

On judging cultures - perhaps us liberals aren't familiar with the proper methodology of measuring and comparing cultures. Please describe in detail. Further, I would like to apply a similar methodology to individuals so i can prove that my cultural practices make me superior to others.

If corrupt politicians cause poverty, how did the US survive Nixon?

"MJohnson - Why is it that conservatives are always trying to justify acts of violence against anyone different?"

I don't know. I haven't justified acts of violence on anyone. My point is that not all cultures are equal in all regards, and therefor, based on whatever criteria you want (including 'morality') you CAN judge them against one another. That doesn't mean you get to kill the weaker culture though. I don't see any justification of violence in this at all.

On judging cultures - perhaps us liberals aren't familiar with the proper methodology of measuring and comparing cultures. Please describe in detail. Further, I would like to apply a similar methodology to individuals so i can prove that my cultural practices make me superior to others.

"On judging cultures..."

Stop right there. Not my question. I'm not talking about this thread or this discussion specifically. I'm asking in general. Even with the 'is the war in Iraq a good cause', any time a moral issue comes up you seem to want to equate all sides as equal because neither is quite perfect...Almost like a biblical 'all sins are equal in the eyes of '.

"If corrupt politicians cause poverty, how did the US survive Nixon?"

That's an excellent example.

Take someone like Arafat, murdered thousands, lied (and got caught) systematically, stole hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and mongered war for 30 years.

Our politicians all lie systematically, but they pay for it when they get caught generally.

Nixon was no where near as bad as Arafat...Nixon got elected twice promising to stop a war, not monger more of one. Nixon never murdered people or stole hundreds of millions of dollars from a government that only made that much in a decade. Nixon covered up someone else breaking into a building to steal campaign plans.

For that, we kicked his ass out of office.

The Palestinians put up with Arafat for 30 years, many even saw him as a hero.

Why is that?

"perhaps us liberals aren't familiar with the proper methodology of measuring and comparing cultures."

No, it certainly doesn't seem that you are.

What I can do is tell you how NOT to do it, and save us all from wasting a lot of time on improper methodology that will yield nothing.

x

y

x = y?

No.

x = 4. y = 7.

If you intend to measure any given culture by it's misdeeds, and see if any are better then others or all are relatively equal, it can't be done like that. You can't count every grain of sand on 2 beaches to see which has more sand on it.

If you think that an incomplete but very long list of amoral deeds by either 'culture' makes them equal, or that a lack of perfection in either case makes them equal, again it's wholley logically incorrect.

Didn't show up in the thread... Insert 'less then 10' after the x and y on top.

First, my "why do all conservatives" comment was a joke. Such sweeping political statements annoy me.

I didn't say that all cultures are equal in all regards. Taken as a whole, there is little point in comparing cultures. Certainly, there is much more personal freedom in our culture than most (all?) islamic cultures. However, I'm sure they'd point out that they have much strong families while divorce is widely common in the US. Further, simply because most islamic countries currently lack personal freedom does not mean that islam can't exist with greater personal freedom. Its just ignorant to connect and compare these unrelated facets of each culture. They're completely different dynamics.

You're just bullshitting to say that these countries are poor because of corrupt governments. Certainly, it doesn't help. But what chance do people have to fight for freedom when they're dirt poor? We're lucky. We don't need to fight for a just government. How many people do you know would be willing to if they had to? ...and remember, you're putting your life and the life of your family at risk when you anger the current regime.

Don't try to use the Israel / Palestine conflict as any sort of example. I don't look for any truth in holy wars.

HOWEVER - the word 'civilization' encompasses much more than those two small facets. In particular, it includes culture and religion. I don't see how someone could prove one culture or religion superior to another.

Keep dancing around without actually, you know, going off of what HE, that Italian dude, said. Respect for human rights, political rights, and religious rights......based on FREEDOM. Go ahead and think we're not light-years ahead (meaning BETTER) than the Islamic-run world.

MJ....you...are....WRONG. Deliverance was in GEORGIA, not Virginia. Other than that, you're pretty spot-on.

Taken as a whole, there is little point in comparing cultures.

OK...buh bye then.

Certainly, there is much more personal freedom in our culture than most (all?) islamic cultures.

BINGO....THAT'S WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT...not the red herrings of stronger families and more/less divorce. We're talking about freedom-based respect for human, political and reliegious rights.

Further, simply because most islamic countries currently lack personal freedom does not mean that islam can't exist with greater personal freedom.

Uh...matt...we're talking about RIGHT NOW, not a mythical potential future. Nobody's talking about how Islam is not CAPABLE of greater personal freedoms, just that right now, our society is better than theirs BECAUSE of the current respect for those mentioned rights.

Tom, You ARE kidding about whether we were moral to go into Vietnam? No? Sigh. We STARTED a great period of violence and bloodshed? Huh? Right, they were very peaceful and happy in Iraq til we came around. No tyranny there! They now have a chance at freedom, no small thing. This war is to their benefit as well as ours. Most DEFINITELY not open for debate. I blame those stinkin' Jesuits.

That's an excellent Lisa. Under american occupation, criminals just get jailed (and this includes terrorists), under Saddam a small critic was punished with torture and death.

Some liberal may invoke abu grhaib, well soldiers involved were punished.

Saddam sons killed and raped at will and only G.I.s gave them what they deserved

>>>Nixon covered up someone else breaking into a building to steal campaign plans.

Yeah ok.

I take it you did not see the other threads where it was shown he knew much more about it than that.

I take it you have no clue what you're talking about now as you did then and are spewing nothing of import, but don't let facts get in your way of saying nothing. It has never been shown that Nixon had anything to do with any break-ins at all, and that the only thing he did wrong was to misuse federal resources to cover them up after the fact. Don't let the truth get in your way though.

Care to change the subject? Throw an ad hominem or 3 around?

You really don't get it Um Yeah. It doesn't matter a damned thing even if he did. Hell, I don't care he broke into the DNC himself and beat the security guard to death with his shoe, that makes him 1/1000th as morally ireprehensible as Arafat, who's killed thousands.

And Nixon is the worst we have.

Arafat is one of many.

Ok, I retract that last bit of hyperbole. I don't know if Arafat has ever murdered ANYONE with his OWN hands...and to credit him with the deaths of others opens up a whole equivalency can of worms by which you can suggest Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam. But it was hyperbole anyway, those of you with more intelligence then a eggplant should get the point.

What he knew or didn't know, Nixon is no Arafat, he's no Assad, he's no Hussein, (Saddam Hussein or previous King Hussein), he's no Taliban, he's no ....ect. ect. ect.

"You're just bullshitting to say that these countries are poor because of corrupt governments."

No, because I'm not saying that, I guessed that would be a response to my argument and pre-emptively addressed it.

Personally, I think there's all sorts of reasons why those people are poor, destitude, and oppressed.

And the sum of all those reasons is this thing we call 'culture'. You seem to think all these issues are seperate and apart from that....They are the make-up of one another, the very substance. The whole of how we live and live together is our culture.

The government by which we rule each other and ourselves, the way we live, what we value, what we accept and what horrifies and mortifies us, all of this is the substance of our culture or is determined by our culture.

>>Personally, I think there's all sorts of reasons why those people are poor, destitude, and oppressed. And the sum of all those reasons is this thing we call 'culture'.

Is 'arid desert' part of culture? Is being born into desperate conditions part of culture?

"Is 'arid desert' part of culture? Is being born into desperate conditions part of culture?"

Yes, you are born into a culture, conditions included. As I have said, those conditions both shape the culture and are shaped by the culture. How do you respond to those conditions? Do these same 'desperate conditions' persist 3 or 4 generations later?

As far as being born into an arid desert, yes, location and environment shapes culture (In the case of technologically advanced west, sometimes is now shaped by the culture as well. Parks and preserves are not natural occurances)

The arid part is a bit odd though, as that doesn't stop large portions of it from growing an abudance of food and having a lush tropical appearance the envy of any vacationer. Odd that.

Odd too living in the Mid East didn't stop them from being a scientific, cultural, economic and military collossus in the past. Same land. They weren't poor or destitute back then.

MJ ever read Guns Germs and Steel?

mattk, you said that muslims have stronger families and less divorce? Perhaps that is because women are stoned for adultery? Note that nothing happens to the male involved. Gee, I guess I would think twice,maybe thrice,if I were a woman and a muslim. So mattk, just HOW will Islam "exist" with a greater personal freedom? I don't believe freedom is a part of the culture. And yes, MJohnson, was correct in taking you to task for trying to seperate religion and culture from "civilization". They are one and the same.

Um Yeah : No. Whats your point?

Mattk : Continuing on, if 'living in arid desert' is one of the leading causes for poverty:

Why is mexico poor? And a good bit of South America? And a good bit of Africa? We're talking lush tropical paradises here. Ever been to mexico? I don't mean Cancun, I mean Mexico city. It's a third world country. But the climate is like Hawaii. Hell - Hawaii! Why are the natives mostly poor as all hell?

why do you think they are MJohnson? What is your take on it?

>>Um Yeah : No. Whats your point?

You really really should.

Its a real eye opener.

>>Why is mexico poor? And a good bit of South America? And a good bit of Africa

Short answer corruption and colonial exploitation.

MJ ever read Guns Germs and Steel?

Yes, and Rats, Lice, and History as well. Got a point? Other than the fact that you have no point?

Hell, I'm having fun now :

Norse mythology is odd, particularly peculiar then any other religion I know of in 1 regard. At the end (Ragnarok) the good guys loose. The Aesir know full and well, ultimately the Frost Giants win and Frenrir devours them all. It's set in stone, it CANNOT change. Yet the gods plow onward, fighting and suffering and struggling in the most epic futility.

The people go right along with them. The best 'end' you can possibly hope for in life, is to be a brave warrior. Then, when you die, you're soul goes to Valhalla, a hall in Asgard, where feast and drink and wait for Ragnarok, when you fight alongside the Aesir and LOOSE, and all things end. So the religion is futile too, and life and religious observance. Who the hell would be Christian if, in Revelations Lucificer cast God down from heaven and tortures EVERYONE in hell? But the Norse were still Norse, and one of the last to convert to Christianity in all Europe.

Another oddity, thought not AS odd as that: To the greeks, living on greek beaches, the Gods were physically perfect. Ugliness or deformity was down-right ungodly. Most religions are the same, gods are beautiful creatures.

But the Norse? Save for the actual Goddess of Beauty, Freyja, just about every one of those suckers was mangled, missing eyes, missing hands.

Why?

When this religion, this culture, was forming it formed in a frozen wasteland. A dry, frigid tundra. Life was rough, damn rough. People were born into great adversity and 'desperate conditions'. And ultimately, they saw all endeavors as futile and fleeting, but pressed on anyway. They put a great emphasis on duty, on persevarence, and pushing on EVEN when you KNEW it was completely hopeless and you would die. They thought like this because they needed to, in order to survive. You NEEDED the whole village, you needed to sweat and bleed for every little bit of life you could beat from the land. This wasn't greece, were you could frolic about naked, living on your own, eating figs.

And it shaped the culture. No question. In turn, the culture shaped their lot in life, it was defined by how they responded to the adversities they faced. And they prospered despite it, because of thier values and beleifs.

Um Yeah:

"Short answer corruption and colonial exploitation."

That's not what Mattk seems to think. He says it's climate.

Mattk:

See Um Yeah's answer - Reference my 'pre-emptive' response. Now you understand why I brought it up.

>>He says it's climate.

How far back are you willing to go?

>>See Um Yeah's answer - Reference my 'pre-emptive' response.

Correct me if im wrong but I do not seeing about exploitive colonization.

You're wrong Um

Why is mexico "poor" (statistically speaking it's a middle income country in matters of per-capita income and among the 20 largest economy and among the trillion USD GNP club)

It's not colonial explotation, spanish rule ended in 1827.

It's not climate either.

It's the result of failed economic & social policies (walfare, and socialistoidean & "nationalistic" measures)applied by some former governments, specially in the 70's and 80's

Yeap, not statistically but in a more open criteria, Mexico is certainly a poor country, and certainly looks subsaharan considering that its main neighbor is the richest country in the world.

If compared with the most "progressive" muslim country in the world (Turkey), it wouldn't look poor; actually it'd qualify better for e.u. membership. This would bring us back to the question wheather a civilization is better than another.

>>It's not colonial explotation, spanish rule ended in 1827.

Emperor Maximilian and the French?

And to my knowledge they have only had a more "modern" style government since The 1917 Constitution of Mexico.

And according to world bank etc. things have been getting better.

whoa!!!!!!!!! Only since 1917!! That was just like, yesterday!

...and maximilian (french invasion) lastet less than 10 years (do you call that a colonial era???)

>>lastet less than 10 years (do you call that a colonial era???)

Did I use the word era? I said colonial exploitation.

But I digress.

The point being is that there was a lack of a stable homegrown government.

>>That was just like, yesterday!

In historical terms it was.

Besides that French never had total control of the country, under your criteria; anyone would asumme that France, Holland, Norway were German colonies during WWII??? I'd consider them occupied countries

Yah...this discussion has turned for the worse. Colonialism is the root of all evil of course, of course.

Um Yeah - "How far back are you willing to go?"

To prove that modern day poverty is linked to climate?? Now this sounds amusing. How far back do you want to go? Let's hear it. I'll go back as far as pleistocene. That far enough?

I'm sure Mexico is (relative to the US) poor today because Cortez took all their gold away 400 years ago. Too much work to research for someone who won't appreciate it anyway.

Jared Diamond makes the argument that part of the reason why the Western world and western Culture came out on top is that they had access to more domesticatable animals and grains that could be farmed.

So climate and location combined with a lack of horse oxen etc. are a part of the slow start.

They did have maize corn but that is relatively late to the scene as barley has been around some 8,000 years wheat about 9,000 and corn about 6,250 years ago. Even then it took corn a long time for it to become its current size.

>>I'm sure Mexico is (relative to the US) poor today because Cortez took all their gold away 400 years ago.

It was closer to 500 hundred years ago. But why nitpick?

Anyway why the focus on Mexico? I was speaking in general terms, and its not like you claim draining a country of its Specie and assorted national resources helped.

Um Yeah...

No one ever colonialized Ethopia. Italy tried once, Ethopia (Yes, powerful enough a mere 200 years ago to beat a colonial power) kicked thier ass and made some colonies of their OWN.

Need I remind you Ethopia is poorer then dirt? about 10 revolutions in the last 100 years doesn't make it very stable either. (Mexico, by the way, has had about 20 homegrown revolutions since it ceased to be colony. Spain was the most stable government it ever had).

As far as Jared Diamond....

That may explain why 1000 years ago Europeans had a cultural advantage....except they didn't. 1000 years ago the Mid East was every bit as advanced as Europe was. 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, 'western civilization' didn't exist in large parts of Europe so I really don't see how 'corn's late arrival 6250 years ago' had any effect.

The most advanced peoples in Europe all lived along the mediteranean (Where the climate is better, more animals and plants are found, consequently close the mid-east). It was the romans and greeks who came up with classic 'western' culture, and imported it throughout Europe. They were VASTLY superior to say, the British or the French.

Yet now, Greece and Italy don't have any enormous benefits over Britian, do they? No. They're certainly equatable but if anything, I'd give Britian the edge. Financial it certainly has the edge.

So how do you explain the disparity? How did a climatic advantage 6000 years ago allow Europe to catch and pass the mideast in just the last 2000 years? Especially when the Mid-east (parts of it) are far more favorable for such things then Europe is!

How did that same advantage not propel southern mediteranean Europe into Uber-Power status ahead of northern Europe?

Seriously, the Irish (and I think British) didn't even have a freakin written language until 200 AD! That's ass backwards.

If you intend to explain what advantages allowed them to become so much more advanced then Native Americans, say, you won't find them 6250 years ago. You'll find them in the last 2000-3000 years, when Native Americans were MORE advanced then Europeans but Europeans closed the gap.

And they managed to do that with a 900 year or so dark age thrown in there where their culture partially stagnated and went nowhere.

Um Yeah, just to make this point perfectly clear, you're saying the presence of wheat and barley in Europe 8 or 9 thousand years ago (in 6000 BC) gave europe and advantage?

http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/history_of_countryside/countryside_history.html

No farmed crops but the population exploited plants producing fruits, berries and seeds. Livestock None but large wild cattle, red deer, boar and elk were all hunted. Fish and water birds were also important in the diet. Dogs would have been kept to help with hunting and guarding. Farming systems Hunter gatherers remained nomadic but would have started to make larger clearings in the woodland in order to drive and catch prey.

That's 5500 BC. Mmm hmm.

How bout 7000 BC?

Farming systems There were no farming systems as such in the UK, but by this time agriculture was well advanced in the "fertile crescent" (northern end of the Persian Gulf to the valley of the River Nile in Egypt) and had reached Greece.

Uh...the persians were farming before us. Huh.

How about wine?

Wine's Growth in Early Europe 1) Around 6000BC In Mesopotamia 2) Around 3000BC-2000BC in Egypt, Phoencia and Greece 3) 1000BC in Sicily and North Africa 4) Spain, Portugal and France in the next 50 years 5) Southern Russia and the Roman Empire 6) Britain and eventually the rest of the western world

Damn...beat again.

You know cattle domestication began around 6500 BC? Did you know that cattle (modern day) scarcely even resemble what they were when they were wild? Looked more like bison or buffalo back then. 8 thousand years of selective breeding will do that for you.

Did you know Buffalo are actually, in many ways, more desirable domesticated food animals then cattle are? Buffalo have the same or greater muscle and body mass but consume less food to get there. They can also live grazing off lower quality food, dryer yellower grasses, and handle a wider range of temperature environments. And all this is WITHOUT 8000 years of selective breeding.

The native americans had access to a better raw natural resource. They never domesticated the buffalo. I don't know why, but they could have.

Oi MJ,

I think you'll find that 2000 years ago we were at the very peak of civilisation. I think pre-Roman we had a runic written language (although I must admit I'm not sure about this). And certainly by 200 AD we had the Romans - but what did the Romans ever do for us eh?

Who was most advanced really is a thorny issue because by what standards are you judging it. I know that in Shakespearean times there is a very strong argument that the most advanced country in the world (at least economically) was India. The Inca's I believe were using mixed agricultural techniques that we are only beginning to appreciate today. The UK probably had two major advantages that made it the world superpower for a while - the empire and the industrial revolution. If kicking other people about in their own countries and locking the working population including children in factories means we were the most "advanced" then whoopee we rocked. As for the UK being ahead of the Italians and the Greeks - well of course we are - we don't have Berlusconi for a start, nor do we drink Retsina (really it's disgusting).

And don't forget western culture isn't based purely on the Romans and Greeks there was a large eastern input too. The Greeks fought with the Persians so didn't exactly give them full credit. History is written by the winners of such wars.

Now I'm going to have a nice cup of tea and a fag. Two more thing we gave the world (they had nothing to do with China or the Americas oh no).

*Civilisation here being defined here as the ability to stand around in big stone circles with your knackers hanging out and your bum painted blue.

Brit,

There is some debate about Ogham and that is the runic language of which I was speaking. I know it was used by the Irish, I beleive it was used by the Anglo/Saxon/Welsh and probably Scottish.

Most estimates put it between 100 and 300 AD.

I didn't mean to suggest 'western' culture came from any 1 place or developed at any 1 time in the whole. A good bit of it came from the greeks and romans though. But on the whole I think part of the reason why the 'old world' of Europe and Asia shot so far ahead of the Americas is because the Americas were more isolate, and less diverse. There's other factors there as well, I don't mean to oversimply it (though I am).

"Civilisation here being defined here as the ability to stand around in big stone circles with your knackers hanging out and your bum painted blue."

Exactly. I don't mean to try and discuss who was more advanced by the standards of 500 BC...I'm discussing this in the context of whether or not ancient climate is directly responsible for poverty today by showing that there certainly isn't any coherant time line that would suggest that possible.

So (in that context) I'm measuring advanced by todays standards, by whether or not they have those things that most consider makes us so rich. Things like rule of law (created in mid-east and far east cultures), written language (again), farming, industry, trade, ect....Gun powder (far east).. A fair bit of Europe was constantly behind the mid east and far east on this, and northern europe (like britian) routinely behind southern mediteranean Europe.

I don't deny that climate impacts culture, I allready said that above. But addressing Um Yeah - historic climates do not impact current financial status. If they did, then things would be backwards and reverse of what they are today based on historic climate and 'jump starts'.

Brit,

"If kicking other people about in their own countries and locking the working population including children in factories means we were the most "advanced" then whoopee we rocked."

For what it's worth, consider that though that sort of thing is amorral by todays standards, it wasn't back then. Other cultures at the time were as bad or worse. Europe was one of the first to be able to cavort about the whole globe redrawing maps and seeding violent racial civil wars 300 years down the road, but other cultures certainly WANTED to.

For all that it's worth, Britian (and Europe) were also the first ones to STOP doing that. To move past it.

Britian itself was a KEY to abolishing slavery, one of the very first with that 'advance'. And resistance to abolishing slavery was nowhere near as bad in places like Europe as it was in the countries were most of those slaves came from to begin with (not many people realize that). The 'evil white men' didn't just enslave Africans..Africans enslaved Africans (And in some places still do), Britian didn't just stop themselves, they pressed rather hard to make countries in Africa stop enslaving each other.

I think the US was a good century or so behind Europe on that particular 'advance'.

"The native americans had access to a better raw natural resource. They never domesticated the buffalo. I don't know why, but they could have."

Because they didn't need to and they had respect for them.

Tom it's not that they didn't need, it's because couldn't find a way to.

When europeans arrive to the new world (with firearms), the most advanced civilizations in this continent, only knew bronze & cooper (not even iron). There were not horses before europeans came, even wheel hadn't been discovered.

so in that sense the americas gave a huge jump from bronze & even stone age to the modern times when it came in contact with the western civilization; however, the muslim world (many countries, i.e. the Afganistan) past from the antique era to the middle ages and stucked there.

"Tom it's not that they didn't need, it's because couldn't find a way to."

There is an argument that if it's possible, it will be done. But from what i've read, for indians, the hunt was a sacred experience and if they didn't worship the animals they hunted, they had a deep respect for them. domesticating them just doesn't seem to me something that would fit into their culture.

i think we need to find a simpler defintion of "advanced"

lets just go by the girth of our bellies.

Tom, throwing herds of hundreds of bufallos into cliffs has more to do with mass murder than with respect.

Bullfighters also claim to feel a lot of "respect" for bulls.

Many native cultures domesticated turkeys and turkeys have done better than buffalos in the continent. Actually the term Wild Turkey implies that turkeys are domesticated by nature so you have to add the adjective wild when it's not domesticated; bears, tigers etc bear the contrary adjective since they're wild by nature.

Alberto, after a google search, i found this which addresses exactly what I'm talking about.

MJ, here's the answer to your question as to why indians didn't domesticate animals.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/booktalk/stories/s1281052.htm

"Nevertheless, as Virginia Anderson shows, relations between the colonists and the Indian peoples were initially by and large civil, managed by negotiation and according to agreed rules—admittedly rules laid down by the colonists. But, she argues, friction over domestic animals as they proliferated and even began to run wild, was to become the most frequent cause of conflict between the colonists and the Indians.

Viginia Anderson: Well, it’s hard for those of us in a western tradition to fully understand this concept, which was described among the Algonquin Indians as ‘manitou’, but as best as I could draw this out from the evidence which remains which, again, comes from English sources, it’s as if Indians understood animals not to be subordinate or somehow lesser creatures than humans but simply different. Just as Indians did not conceive of a sharp demarcation between the natural and supernatural world, they could see that spiritual sources which could affect humans also could infuse animals and give them powers—powers to avoid people…some of the English commentators noted the Indians mentioning that deer had a special power and knew how to avoid traps, things like that. So it’s hard to put our fingers on exactly what this was, but a special spiritual power, a connection between animals and the spiritual world, an idea that’s utterly absent in the Christian tradition.

MJ:

Horses? Oxen?

Forget about them?

Tom, for what i read at the link you posted, specially at the end of the page,it's to be inferred that the central point is not essentially the system of beliefs but the the type of economy, (which in a certain way is moded by beliefs). It reads that subsistence economies are not compatible with agriculure & and animal husbandry (somehow comercial economies)

Yeah, but the Indian "economy" is tied very closely tied to their spiritual beliefs. They're practically inseperable.

Which is why I wrote that I didn't see indians domesticating animals because of their beliefs... basically how they lived.

Tom, if we're going to lump all indians under 1 cultural model, I want to play too. I'm going to use the Seminols for the model of all indegenous indians. They were canibals.

But for the sake of the argument, lets stick with the indians who 'revered the animals too much to domesticate them'.

How do they differ from the way bronze-age peoples in Europe saw nature? Not by a whole a lot. Mother Nature is a cruel mistress. People without the ability to shape the nature around them often wind up worshipping it....Until they learn to control it, and then it ceases to be mystifying. There were nature worshipping religions all over Europe. The key is that Europe moved on, but America, isolated and stagnated, froze for thousands of years when very little changed.

You seem to want to say 'they didn't need to domesticate Buffalo to survive'.....Well, depends on how you define 'need'. Europeans didn't NEED to domesticate cattle to live, they were certainly 'living' before they did that. But doing so allowed them to live BETTER. And do a whole lot less dying. Native AMericans certainly could have lived much better.

A healthy culture is a dynamic culture, which constantly changes and evolves and adapts. Native Americans lived in a stagnant, static way of life. The way of 'domesticating cattle' led us here, to the internet. To men on the moon. To modern science. To a greater understanding of the world around us, and a greater ability to control what happens to us.

The native american's 'lived without' domesticating animals and such 'western ideas'. Which is why it's entirely probable to presume that, had no one ever crossed the atlantic and introduced new ideas to a frozen culture, they'd STILL be in the bronze age today.

You seem to idealize that. Do you know what that means? It means 40 years old isn't middle age, it's damn near dead.

It means any given mother has about a 1 in 10 chance of dying during child birth.

It means if you want to have 3 kids, you need to have 18 kids, because you'll watch 10 of your 18 children die before the age of 9.

Any wolf that wants to eat you, may well do so. Curable diseases like malaria or typhoid go from being almost extinct....to epidemic, claiming millions and millions of lives.

And all of the ideals aren't quite so romantic in practice. Could you watch while juvenile boys were forced to risk thier lives in order to prove they were men? I suppose you no longer care much for this 'equality of the sexes' idea?

You know, this 'mutlicultural' spiel is impossible NOT to contradict.

The same people saying that cultures cannot be compared, that native american or native african or Islamic sharia culture is every bit as worthy as western democratic culture...

By what right then, if they beleive that, do these same people have any right to demand gay marraige?????

Gay marraige is NOT part of a culture, never was. Who the hell are they to want to change our culture to suit them? How can they suggest that our culture would be 'better' with gay marriage? There can be no such thing as better, cultures that choose to stone gay people to death are just as valid as those who embrace them.

Who is anyone to declare a xenophobic racists beleifs and culture are not as valid as any others? How can you call him a monster just because he wants to kill all the jews and black people?? That's the culture he grew up in, that's his way of life. How is it that it's not just as valid as any other?

You're culture may approve of diversity and acceptance, but you can't impose your culture on him can you now? His culture approves of pride and racial purity. One can be no morally superior to the other. Each have strength's and weaknesses, no?

At any rate..Tom:

The next time you see photographs or video of New Orleans, don't feel too bad for the people living there. Not for someone who thinks so much of the native american way of bronze age living.

Despite being in the middle of a natural disaster area, high-tech left-overs continue to make life 10 times more comfortable and safe in the middle of a freak disaster then it was 24/7/365 for your average Iroiquois. Quite a life they were living.

I'll say it again, because they didn't need to and because they respected animals.

Nice rant though.

The europeans didn't NEED to either. Yet they did.

The Europeans respected (And worshiped) animals too....before they figgured out how to control them.

There, I've said ....again.

MJ, Europeans had domesticated cattle in the Neolithic age.

And, MJ, do you have evidence that Europeans didn't domesticate animals because of a respect for them?

You're using broad generalities as an argument here. What Europeans are you talking about exactly?

Wow so much knowledge being thrown around.

OK I'm going to generalise massively. I think Eurasia did particularly well cos of numbers of people. Yes the Americas and Australasia were cut off. Europe had some other advantages - we don't have the dangerous wildlife others do and nature is a little gentler over here too. We got lucky a bit, we were pretty expansionist and we were quite aggressive in business and wars.

But if the butterfly flapped it's wings another way 5000 years ago maybe Tierro Del Fuego would have occupied the position Britain did and Africa would occupy the position America does.

Was is grain, the domestication of animals, religious beliefs, or the lack of gay marriage that meant things turn out the way they did?

I'll give you another two.

Quality glass blowing was another pivotal moment it meant we were able to make technical instruments that allowed us to blah blah blah.

Europeans discovered the Chinese made gunpowder be pissing on pissing on saltpetre and without zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the VU info - I didn't know that and it made me smile. There is hope for the world.

Hi MJ,

I'll be I could find something on the Internet about a gay marriage in some obscure culture, I wanna play too.

_I'm_ generalizing? What europeans am I talking about? Hello? What Native Americans are YOU talking about? You're generalizing.

Europeans domesticated cattle in 6500 BC.

Tom, in 7500 BC the indigenous people in Europe very very similar to the people in the Americas in terms of culture.

The native americans just progressed much slower and never passed a few key hurdles.

But to suggest that they didn't domesticate animals because their culture evolved differently is just untrue. Regardless of different or not, it didn't evolve. It sat still. It never passed the point when Europeans started domesticating animals, not just in areas of animal domestication but plenty of others.

To say that they 'respected' nature is also a generalization. There were plenty of native american tribes, with plenty of beleifs, cultures, and religions. There were many that did NOT harbor any magnificient respect for nature, many were VERY warlike and violent (some even cannabilistic). Yet THEY didn't domesticate animals either. Others DID domesticate smaller animals but not the larger ones.

"There were many that did NOT harbor any magnificient respect for nature, many were VERY warlike and violent (some even cannabilistic)."

Dude, you're just pulling shit out of your ass. Yes, many were warlike and violent (most even?), but that doesn't mean they didn't have this respect/fear/admiration for nature.

Infact, this sort of relationship with nature was prevelent throughout indian tribes throughout north america.

And tribes didn't have religions, per se, but more a communal natural spiritualsim. Many did convert to christianity when settlers arrived.

To tell you the truth, I don't know much about early Europeans, but judging from your ignorance of indian culture in north america, I'm not inclinded to believe you when you say "Tom, in 7500 BC the indigenous people in Europe very very similar to the people in the Americas in terms of culture."

So let me get this straight.

You're telling me that from the Inuits in Alaska to the Guarani in Argentina, all indigenous american peoples had essentially just one culture.

And somehow, despite all these people who never lived anywhere near each other all adopting a remarkably similar culture, this 'american' culture was absolutely nothing at all like european or asian cultures.

Not some inherant human trait of society, something completely different developed in the america's, yet somehow, that different thing developed EVERYWHERE in the americas, even though most if it never had the slightest bit of contact with one another.

Brit -

Now this, I did not know. I found that culture you were talking about.

"The Illini had a sharp division of labor. The main activities of the men were hunting and warfare. while the women worked in the fields. In fact, the women did much of the work around the camp and village. The Illini found it easy to grow their maize, pumpkins, and squash with which to vary their diet. They dried maize and stored it against the predictable shortages of winter. Fish were also plentiful in the Illinois River and its tributaries when necessity demanded their harvest. As mentioned previously, they enjoyed an annual buffalo hunt during the course of which they fired the prairie to concentrate the bison. The Illini practiced polygamy. Wives suspected of unfaithfulness were severely punished, sometimes suffering the loss of an ear or nose. The French were astonished to find among the Illini some few men who dressed and acted out the social role of women. These the Illini called Ikoneta, but the French called them berdache.(12). Small boys who showed marked tendencies toward femininity were raised as girls. This included use of tatooing and language patterns that were traditionally female. Many confirmed their status as Ikoneta in their dream fasts. They are thought to have been bi-sexual. "