Is retaining Culture better than allowing people to suffer?

There is a big difference between respecting perceived boundaries and having an issue with individualism.

Honestly man, there's no reason for such dialogue. We disagree. Big deal. The world (and the thread) Isn't going to end.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Well, to be fair, the thread might end.

Octo: First, I agree with you. But, I think you misrepresented an ideology a few posts ago, when you said that an authority figure making a decision on behalf of his people is "not a democratic attitude, as democracy is the "rule of the people"."

However, the thing is, there is no such thing as a Democracy in the modern world (except Sweden, but forget them, that government is so weak it isn't even funny *

), most major governments for the past several decades have been Republics, which are not so much Democracies as they are democratically-elected Oligarchies. When you vote for a representative, you are giving him the right to make decisions for you, at least until his term ends.

Again, however, I agree with you. Whether or not to stay "primitive" should be an individual's decision. I just thought you were misrepresenting the term.

Still Sheepin'

The question is whether or not they want to join a different society. The state of their culture is irrelevant. If someone wants to convince them, they should be allowed to join, if they don't, let'm rot.

Fight smart, not fair.

I can't believe I'm partially agreeing with Deboss on something

People have the right of their own destiny. Let them do as they please. They're not hurting us and all we can do is really hurt them.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

I don't think that's really how it works in practice, especially not for children.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Practice vs morality. The OP was questioning the morality of such things. If you're looking at it from a practicality point*

, then no, the best solution is to wipe out the culture, collect the people that can excel at things that are good and stick the rest of the population in minimum wage jobs.

Fight smart, not fair.

Because that isn't imperialist at all.

I am now known as Flyboy.

From what I've seen first hand in the Third World, encouraging them to follow our lead is the very worst thing we could do for everyone involved.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

Eh, I'm an individualist, so I support abolishing all cultures and replacing them with sub-cultures that people can go into and out of at will.

No, no, no, no. Sorry, but I've seen that misdefinition of "republic" all too often on the internet, and practically always by US-Americans. In actual and historical political definition, a republic is everything which is not styled as a monarchy. No matter if democratic, representive or dictatorical. The Roman Republic was defined by not being a monarchy, but it always was an oligarchy or dictatorship. The Republic of the Seven United Netherlands was during large parts of their history ruled by the House of Nassau-Orange (the later royal house) like a monarchy, but since it was never styled as monarchy, it was a Republic. And so on.

You can have democratic monarchies (UK, etc.), dictatorical monarchies (Saudi Arabia etc.), democratic republics (USA etc.) and dictatorial republics (North Korea etc.). That's the terminology.

And with that being said, the USA and most European countries at least have the pretense of being democracies. That certainly is their self-identification. It may not always be that in reality, but it's the ideal to strife for - democracy, rule of the people. And an attitude of "let's just be subservant to authority, they surely know what they're doing" is the antitehsis of this.

Sure, most democracies these days are representative. But that doesn't mean one should switch of one's brain in between the elections! Proper democratic attitude is to always watch one's representatives with an eagle's eye to make sure that they indeed represent the population and not their own interests.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Ok, I misspoke. Or mis-typed, whatever. The point was that there is no such thing as straight "Democracy", the closest thing to it is a "Democratic Republic".

The Roman Republic exactly fits the definition "democratically-elected Oligarchy", so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. And I have to admit, I know literally nothing about the Netherland's historical government.

What you were saying was that a tribal leader deciding on whether or not to join mainstream culture wasn't democratic, and I just thought that was a double standard, because we let leaders make decisions for us all the time.

Still Sheepin'

@Anne: and @Octo: I don't want to get into history battlez because they're off topic. And @anne: I like V Ikings, but the E Nglish are Christian by that time.

As for whether to force huntergatherers into mainstream industrial agricultural society:

Why?

People in hunter gatherer societies don't do too bad at all. It doesn't support very large populaitons, but it does provide for the few quite well.

edited 8th Dec '11 3:38:14 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

That you think this is remotely feasible even with a governmental system that would put 1984 to shame attests to the fact that you have no concept of how culture actually works.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Deboss: Stop posting.

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

Deboss, you're awful and I hope that was just a joke.

I can get why someone might think that moving into the African continent to try and beat some culture into Johnny Foreigner would be a great idea because we can bring Western standard of living to these people. But if you look at the historical history of doing that, no matter what the intention has ended terribly: The Mandate system, Colonization of Australia and America, the US going into Commie countries and installing despot dictators, etc. But at least there is a respectable sentiment.

However, what Deboss said was just wrong in every sense.

edited 8th Dec '11 5:34:14 PM by YeahBro

All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.

It is wrong to oppress culture. To destroy culture in the name of "quality of living" is to wipe clean generations of history, culture, and ways of life. Sure, the slate is clean, but whatever was there before is erased.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

I'd love to see the average American live as a tribal.

Then lets see where the education was needed

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Guys, Deboss has a point. What he's suggesting is morally reprehensible...and as a practical matter is probably happening somewhere right now as I type this. And there's probably a reason why its the preferred method of conquerors to deal with the conquered.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

But the point he may or may not have is not the one he intended to make.

The point that would be good to draw out of that is that we First (and Second) Worlders are reprehensible for doing such. I mean, look at Mexico. Illegal immigration down there is used by the plutarchs (who put the American plutarchy to shame) to draw attention away from how Mexico is now quite literally a Third World country when only 40-50 years ago it probably could have qualified for the Second World. If we shut down the border entirely the government down there would collapse almost immediately.

And that's Mexico, which we don't usually think of in that light. I can't even fathom what horrific shit we probably do in Africa or the less developed parts of Asia and Latin America...

I am now known as Flyboy.

So quality of life doesn't matter? Oh that's of course so easy to say when it's about other people! Hell, look at us, at the culture of the European (westerm) world! We're destroying ever more traditional cultural "values" of us, and it's a good thing! But if it's the same "values" in other cultures, then that's something different? Like hell!

"History", "culture", "way of life" are just abstract concepts. Nobody owes anything to them. They're not alive, they're not even materially existant! People matter. Only people matter. And that means individuals.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Culture is bred out of adversity. Case in point; you wouldn't be enjoying rock and roll right now if a bunch of white assholes hadn't decided to import slaves to America a few centuries ago. Now, there are a lot of degrees of separation present there, but the basic point is sound.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

If there was no rock and roll, somebody else would have filled the niche. I'd be enjoying something.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

@Octo,

But you just said it:

We are destroying our own culture because we have the right to do so.

They too must be accorded the same right.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Agreed with USAF 713. If a stone age tribe suddenly decided to modernise, no outsiders have the right to stop it.

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

But my point is that those conceptions of "we" and "them" are pointless. They cannot just be afforded collective rights. That's not enough. What about individual rights?

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic