The world's most toxic value system
uwgb.edu
uwgb.edu
Industrialization changed the balance. If you have guns and your opponents have spears, it doesn't matter how fierce they are.
The traditions of warrior socities may be obsolete, but it seems provincial to call them "toxic." Members of those societies would be equally contemptuous of our traditions. For example, our lack of loyalty. We're nicer to women, but would we be as willing to die to save a friend? We're more sensitive, but are we as honest?
I'm not sure who's more 'fierce' between the Romans and the Germans. Technological advantage existed long before industrialization: the macedonian pike, the persian archers, the roman phalanx.
Has anybody read "The Fates of Nations" by Paul Colinvaux? Recommended. Especially if you've read Guns, Germs and Steel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fates_of_Nations
That's why I said fiercest and most cohesive. There's no single word for it, but the key to winning in ancient warfare was never to run away.
Ancient battles usually lasted one day and continued till one side broke, whereupon a rout ensued. So the way to win was to be willing to stay at your post and fight to the death. If you were willing to, you didn't have to.
Perhaps the closest thing to a one-word recipe would be "steadfast."
There is always technological advance, but the examples you give are really more social than technological.
I agree: For most of history battles were not based on technological advantage against superior numbers, but were simple wars of attrition between increasingly equal opponents in numbers and technology. (That mindset culminated in WWI.) Warrior aristocracies did control territories out of proportion of their numbers. Especially in times of peace, when subjugating their own populations.
Being more steadfast can't defeat 10-1 odds (that requires significant technological advantage), but it was still worth a lot.
---
I wasn't sure how to talk about cohesiveness. Cohesive can be just stubborn persistence, or it can be more harmonious tactics.
Technology always has a social component. For the macedonian pike to arise you needed the social infrastructure around it that allowed Philip to train soldiers, then send them out to become battle-hardened defending trading routes from pirates. (That's a pretty common pattern, and explains why islands often grow into great powers; the right social infrastructure for warlike technology often arises after trade for several generations.)
But by no means is it so simple a matter as just being more steadfast. I can't think of a single battle that was won against 10-1 odds in numbers without technological advantage (including dramatically superior generalship and training). In fact, it's battles like in WWI or involving General Marlborough that relied on steadfastness and attrition because there was no other advantage, of technology or of generalship or of numbers.
Here's how joining an ancient army is not like joining a contemporary startup: then your goal was to destroy and assimilate the enemy. Now it is to be happily assimilated.
---
People tend to consider the feudal system a step back from the glorious states that were ancient Greece and ancient Rome. In reality it's a step forward, employing standing armies in a decentralized 'p2p' organization rather than mobilizing armies for specific invasions.
Taking away loot as the primary incentive makes becoming a soldier more of a 'normal' career and less of a risk, more stable and less reliant on big payouts. This in turn gives a society as a whole less incentive to go marauding against its neighbors. The stability we have today in the west began then, with the barbarian Germanic tribes that later came to have knights and chivalry. Before we could have stock markets and acquisitions we had to stop fighting among ourselves.
:) Happy holidays everyone!
Not really true. "Hold the line" battle is practically a modern invention. Battle for most of human history looked more like guerilla campaigns and surprise massacres.
The Vikings, Mongols, Iroquoi and so on had no problem with the "He who fights and runs away..." sentiment. Thinking strategists win wars, not pumped up jocks.
The best book I know of on this subject is Hanson's The Western Way of War. Though frankly for such a basic point any book on ancient warfare would do.
Hoplite battle is specific to a time and place. The Mongols conquered more territory than anyone, ever, with mounted archers and ready retreats. Accounts of battle in the French and Indian War probably best represent the norm when it comes to human warfare. It was characterized by raids and slaughter of civilians, not pitched battle with no retreat.
The downside is that its hard to defend the empire that you've conquered using horse archery.
Alexander the Great reputedly defeated Scythian horse archers, but he left no records as to how this is was achieved. He probably used his companion cavalry to chase the horse archers against a river or into a forest. Like what the romans did to Hannibal's father. I think the Egyptians were able to beat the Mongols ONCE but only with superior numbers and a lot of preparation.
Anyway, it is USUALLY true that winning a war is about who's side has stronger will to fight. Who said that? Xenophon?
But tactically, horse archers that always run away cannot be beat. They rain arrows down upon you, burn your farms and supply lines, and taunt your huge 200,000 man armies out to be crushed in a simulatenous attack on all sides by 5 different columns of Horse Archers all arriving at the same time. They are will-breakers. Like startups picking away at slow thinking corporations.
This is similar to how the Athenians eventually defeated the Spartans by never engaging them in close combat and raining arrows and spears on them. Tactics. Not exactly the bravest thing, the Spartans would have called this Womanly fighting.
With the advent of gunpowder, artillery, and combined arms. You can't pull this off anymore. Thank god.
Lesson: Mongols only fight pitched battles they've already won.
Although for us startup guys, the point that PG might be impressing is that, its the company with the most determination that wins. Not the one with the most money/people.
kingkong here is implying that tactics and adaptive thinking is the key, not just having a hard head and tunnel vision.
As a counterpoint to what I just said, the original Bushido code was codified by a ronin, and the most recent literary work on the Bushido code, the Hagakure was written when the Japanese warrior class was already on their way out ... and the author thought the greatest shame was to meet his death in soiled underwear.
Like any career path in any culture, you'll find people who obediently obey the well-worn paths. The warriors of a warring culture is no less the same. They were fertilizer then, and they are fertilizer now. And there's always the minority who are aware of their cultural blinders. The old initiations were meant to give this gift of awareness to the perceptive. In the old days, these were the warchiefs or the shaman; today, they are the military apprentices and the hackers.
Yes.
In fact, no matter what your opinion of the current politics vis-a-vis Iraq, it seems that not only would we die to save a friend, we would die to save an enemy, or an idea. We've done it time and again. As far as I know, no other culture is like that. As far as honesty, societies with "thar" mentalities are some of the most dishonest societies on the planet, whereas western societies a lot of business can be conducted on just a handshake. Ever try a handshake at a bazaar?
I think western civilization stacks up quite well against those questions. It's not a relative thing -- certain ideas make cultures better than other ones. Societies are all not equal -- that's a late 20th-century mode of thinking that's non-operative.
But perhaps I read too much into your response.
I've tried them with people working on my car transmission, my real estate agent, and various/sundry people in my path I thought I could trust. I would trust a stranger at a bazaar more than any of those parasites.
Care to think that over a bit more? Perhaps phone a friend?
Real estate agents want the house to sell quickly at the highest price possible (to increase both their deal throughput and commission). This serves neither the buyer (who should be looking for lowest price of whatever it is he wants) nor the seller (who gets to pay an absurd commission for what amounts to secretarial work).
So yeah, this is completely off topic, but at least the person in the open air market just wants to sell something, and by being there you must want to buy it, so I don't see the swindle.
So the person in the market is unknown to you. He has something, you have something. You trade, life is good.
But how do you know when you give your money you'll get something? How do you know it's the thing you asked for? How can you be sure the trader isn't just trying to lure you back to some back room where you can be mugged or worse? While haggling at a bazaar can be great fun, there's a lot of risk involved. Financial transactions do not like risk. That's why we don't sell houses using the bazaar format.
I'd like to point out that houses sell and are bought for all kinds of reasons aside from price. So I believe your reply to be a little weak in that regard. Whatever the case, the position of "real estate agent" in our society confers all kinds of things. If the house is not the seller's, then you are covered. If the agent runs off with your down-payment, you are covered. If the agent knowingly misrepresents the house, you are covered. In fact, the idea is that the risk is reduced to simply: is it worth what I am paying for it? Financial markets like this.
There's no problem with multiple parties all having somewhat conflicting interests. Financial transactions occur when parties find some subset of aligning interests in which to trade around. Not total alignment -- that doesn't exist. Once you have enough alignment for a trade, you've got to reduce risk. Some of these cultures, for instance, refuse to use a banking system, believing it to be immoral. While I deeply respect the right of any individual to believe any dang thing he wants, cultures that do things like ban banking, private property rights, etc. greatly increase the risk during financial transactions. That's why I'd never get involved in Russia, for instance -- never can tell when the ruling party might decide just to take over your entire business. You can't have a highly-functioning society like that.
Like I said, I'd trust a Realtor more to not kill me (or perpetrate some other act of violence). Was just saying Realtor has much more financial incentive to screw me over in a legal, but still unkind, way.
"I'd like to point out that houses sell and are bought for all kinds of reasons aside from price. So I believe your reply to be a little weak in that regard. ... In fact, the idea is that the risk is reduced to simply: is it worth what I am paying for it?"
I totally agree that houses are bought for a number of reasons, but I was discussing the dimension involving getting the best price. If you love a house because it has fluffy pink toilet seats and are willing to pay any amount of money for that comfort, then you aren't getting screwed. On the other hand, if you live in the real world and have a maximum budget for a house, the realtor will always show you things just above your range, in the hopes you will splurge on it. Sure, you can find another realtor that won't do this, but most people won't. It's not illegal, and only slightly immoral, so I can't say I blame the realtor. They are just working within the system they are given to maximize personal gain, like anyone else. The problem I was pointing out is that the system is not well aligned with the needs of either the buyer or seller.
"Some of these cultures, for instance, refuse to use a banking system, believing it to be immoral. While I deeply respect the right of any individual to believe any dang thing he wants, cultures that do things like ban banking, private property rights, etc. greatly increase the risk during financial transactions. That's why I'd never get involved in Russia, for instance -- never can tell when the ruling party might decide just to take over your entire business. You can't have a highly-functioning society like that."
I totally agree there.
I'd rather have an equal playing field and do my own worrying about the realtor screwing me over than about my physical safety. The economy works great with people looking after their own financial interests, but not so well when things like contracts, personal safety, banking, or insurance bonds are non-existent.
Still like that idea of a bazaar being better than dealing with a professional in a western culture? From where I'm sitting it's not looking so hot. Remember -- the guy in the bazaar can still screw you the ways professionals in the west can -- but he can screw you in a lot more ways, too.
My brief, gross over simplification is that the local ecology is the driving factor: the warrior cultures (more thar-ish and more monotheistic) develop in deserts, while polytheistic, somewhat more egalitarian cultures develop in rain forests.
He says "ours is a planet dominated by the cultural descendants of the desert dwellers. And "most evidence suggests that the rain-forst mindset is more of a hosthouse attribute, less hardy when uprooted."
I'm not doing him justice. The essay, and the rest of the book, is classic Sapolsky: well-written, entertaining, and fascinating.
The bulk of this piece is a build-up to his final warning that "advanced" cultures must be vigilant to avoid slipping [back] into warrior-esque social dogma.
What the author describes is the most basic form of a pattern which can emerge in societies at any level of advancement. The metaphorical problem is the implicit assignment of hierarchy and title, whereas a successful and fluid society will only grant these things explicitly as a result of behavior beneficial to all.
Because they aren't "bad". They seem foreign to our intellectual understanding, but they are a successful way to run a culture.
For an example, witness the current US practice of "Thar" after 9/11. Honour is an effective device when moving a society into action.
And you can't be suggesting that societies that adhere to things like, say, no banking, enslaving half the population, anti-rationalism, etc are successful ways to run a culture? Perhaps you are confusing stagnation with things that most any person would agree to be good: modern medicine, free markets, ability to form private contracts, etc.
These aren't values that are owned by one society that somehow we arbitrarily use to judge other societies. These are good ideas that occur time and time again no matter what the original culture. Some cultures work better than others. Some cultures are better at things like feeding their people, making them happy, and understanding the universe than others. Everything is not more or less the same.
That is true of modern warfare, as well.
"If you have guns and your opponents have spears..."
Sure, in an extremely asymmetric war, the folks with the missiles can relax the fierceness a bit.
"Industrialization changed the balance."
As war becomes more about tools, the economic efficiency of the underlying society matters more. However, very early in history it was the case that he with the best toys wins. Swords were never cheap, nor was the time it took to learn to use them. The importance of technology in pre-industrial societies can be understood by the frequency and severity of arms control in China and Japan. A bunch of motivated peasants with hoes are in a bad place vis-a-vis a few gentlemen with swords and steeds.
Faith in brands has replaced faith in our neighbors. If honor is obsolete, it's because the individual is obsolete; corporations (and government) have eclipsed the individual as the primary change agents in people's lives. Who cares if my spouse is unfaithful as long as I can trust Apple and Coca-Cola.
</cynicism>
I don't think there's any evidence for this, and certainly no evidence that Thar is related to battlefield cohesion. Battle has always been about tactics, technology, and men & materiel. The relevance of a "RAWR! we are fierce!" culture to victory is unsubstantiated BS, claims of B movies and high school football coaches to the contrary.
The Romans and Mongols weren't Thar and they militarily dominated neighboring Thar cultures with superior tactics and technology in a relatively low-tech environment. Bantu and Arab Thar people have always been relatively incompetent at war.
So why are Thar cultures common? It's simple and has nothing to do with military prowess: high birthrates. Thar cultures displace non-Thar cultures with a flood of human beings. There are expansionist cultures and cultures geared to limiting the population to a sustainable level. The expansionists always over-run the sustainables, at least in the intermediate term. You can see this all over the world. In Africa Thar Bantu people have almost eradicated non-Thar indigineous cultures like the San over the last century. Thar Lebanon has overwhelmed non-thar Lebanese culture in just the last 50 years by way of birth rates. There are many, many examples.
I might guess it has to do with places where life is hardscrabble and one is more successful largely by having more sons out there herding more goats. Presumably there just aren't enough resources out there to make temporary economic alliances more important than long-term familial ties. Fierceness and honor might indeed be the most important thing, because without good marriages for your sons, and when your neighbors don't fear you, the clan is doomed.
And then this strategy meets modern technology, and it gets really fun!
But I offer this with a caveat: just-so stories about culture are dime a dozen.
1. The word Thar: He doesn't want to saddle the Spanish, but is more than happy to saddle the Arabs. This is bad form and almost racist. Every culture in the world practices "Thar", why the disdain for Arabs?
2. Ignoring European "Thar" - With the exception of the Former Yugoslavia (Muslims - interesting), the author basically ignores the many examples of this in European societies, from Italian, Greek, Spanish, Russian. Hell, the Mafia is basically built on this, and last time I checked it's alive and well - but it doesn't even get mentioned. (FYI, I'm southern Italian... my grandparents are as "backwards" as can be sometimes.)
3. The real reason the west no longer follows "Thar" is because of the Age of Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment).
Because it's only a few generations old (having happened in the 1800's) and was centered in Europe - by extension North America - it has simply taken time to reach other parts of the world. Namely, the mid east and Africa.
This is the reason that Thar - which enlightenment rejects - is still so prevalent in these societies.
4. The Bushido code IS "Thar". The fact is that Japan up until the end of WWII embodied "Thar" to a degree of perfection seen nowhere else on the planet cannot be excused away by a "remorse shine" in a doctor's office.
In fact, had the doctor been a true practitioner of Bushido, he would have killed himself long ago. The remorse shrine is a symbol of cowardice consistent with reason - imported from North America after WWII. (I'm not suggesting either one is correct) This shows more than anything that the doctor is conflicted between the notion of an insult to his honor, and the understanding that real sacrifice should not be required.
This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at pinning Arabs and Muslims with the moniker of backwards-stone age people that need "educating". If this is what qualifies for advanced cultural thinking in the US, its no wonder you're losing in Iraq.
>"It's considered bad form in many circles to criticize another culture's values. "
Perhaps the author would do well to follow the advice of his peers.
There is a recent idea that criticizing other cultures is a bad idea and or bad form. However, cultures are unique so Thar and "honor" are separate concepts so not all cultures have "Thar". EX: Some early cultures in Europe practiced human sacrifice however over time that went out of style etc. In other words cultures are different, but we should not talk about how these differences may be good or bad at generating wealth?
In the modern world attempting to keep doing the same job your entire life will often fail. Doing your fathers job the same way he did is not going to work. And doing the same thing as your great grandfather in the same way he did is a really bad idea. However, it seems like bad form to criticize cultures who think sons should continue in their father's foot steps. At the same time it seems obvious that such cultures would on average be less likely to do well in the modern world.
Anyway, rather than defending the essay I would just ask you to read it again after "What You Can't Say" and see if you react in the same way. I think the he is trying to talk about a vary specific kind of "honor" vs attacking specific culture as a whole.
However, the author has no facts to back anything he asserts. Warrior societies are successful, and always have been. Thar is a proven business practice, as it were.
Among my martial arts friends, we have a description of "Old Man Powers". What we mean by that is described in this Kung-Fu Magazine article: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=74...
... that is to say, the survivors tend to be very, very crafty. Whether or not there is social sanctions for 'thar' behavior, I think that insults to honor and blood feuds often used by the immature, adolescent male more than the older, mature male. 'High-tech' may prove more as a means for killing people with more expensive equipment.
I've had some interesting times reading the comments here over the past couple days and thinking about them. My conclusion (for now) is that the author of the article has some insights in a very broad sense while overlooking some things. He says things that can be mistaken for racism because he did not provide specific examples to the contrary. Having looked through some of his other articles on the site, I see that he also has some very strong opinions. However, at the end of the day, his opinion is more or less irrelevant to someone who is living a modern warrior's life (as archaic as that sounds) -- whether that person is a martial artist, or a hacker. I find I have trouble taking his opinions seriously when I have doubts that he has been at the sticky end of violent conflicts. You cannot intellectually stop yourself from pissing your pants and vacating your bowels when your body is screaming in mortal danger.
Culture shapes us the way, say the Ruby on Rails framework shapes a web app. Conventions may be the results of hard-won experience, but the truly mature human being walk that path of evolution and learn from their own mistakes. One's whole life is an iterative process of development. Evolutionary scaffolding. Technological superiority does not entitle us supremacy any more than our ability to deliver violence. Hack your own life and make it better.
Good coding folks.
This is the first time you have used the term "warrior society," so I am unsure as to what you mean. Last I checked, there were no truly pacifist societies that existed for more than just a few years (or were supported by another society prepared to use force)
My fuzzy-definition alarm is going off again. I sure hope you don't mean to use the term "warrior society" in such a broad sense that it has no particular meaning at all. As a starter, I would suggest societies that have mandatory military service, require the ownership of weapons, believe that the strong should conquer the weak, etc. I could add more, but it's your term. I think there's a big difference between what I think of as a warrior society and a society that uses violence in measured ways.
But I submit. Uncle. Whatever. I enjoy people having differences of opinion. I also feel that in small teams you have to chase down these differences and get them resolved. It's not like one person can think of the customer as being a 70-year-old lady and the other person think of them as being a teenage male. Terms mean things. I think if you keep chasing, as pg opined, you'll eventually end up in fairly close agreement. There's a balance between being probing and inquisitive and being obnoxious. I was probably a little obnoxious. Sorry about that.
But even if I let this racist term go through, what is Thar, exactly? A good deal of time is spent talking about how it isn't various things-- honor, bushido-- but it isn't ever defined. Instead I get this list of things that are associated with the "mentality," a list that, among other things, describes Tokugawa Japan perfectly. As a side note, anyone who thinks Japan's is a culture of Bushido does not know Japanese history. The Bushido code was written by a samurai who never saw combat, whose father never saw combat, and whose grandfather, in likelihood, never saw combat. The Bushido myth is a propaganda piece for convincing daimyos to keep their samurai on the payroll.
So we have a clearly racist document using a nonsense term to describe nothing. What, exactly, is this?
It is a commentary on a way of life usually practiced by Arabs, but also commonly found in other places in the world. It is not a blanket statement about any race, therefore your charges of racism are total BS. You can be a member of a race and participate or not in a particular culture. Race is not culture. It's not a one-to-one relationship. To say that it is, ironically enough, racist. People are free agents and can choose to be anything they want. Cultures are fair game for all sorts of criticism -- we are really good at criticizing our own culture. Thank goodness we live in a world where criticism of culture is encouraged.
The telling point would be to find a non-Arabian culture that encourages 'thar'. Unfortunately, I have not yet thought of an example off the top of my head involving an non-Arabian culture.
The original author also vaguely discusses the rise of 'thar' culture sprouting on the internet without giving any specifics. I've been to forums where where people flame each other for sport. I remember the occasional tiffs here, and people trashing Reddit. I know Digg and YouTube comments are full of inanities. Not to mention the flames on blog posts and regular news articles when someone gets upset but clearly did not thoroughly read the article in question. It often seem to closely track the maturity level of the people involved: immature human beings don't know how to set good personal boundaries, whatever culture that might be.
American urban hip-hop culture.
1.) The obsession with "bling" and personal status through high-priced consumer goods. I've read that it's poor urban kids buying those $200 Nikes, and then marketers hope that their tastes will filter down into middle-class American kids. The street kids on the subway often have more stylish clothes and accessories than rich white kids. Remember Ludacris's song "Glamorous"?
2.) Anti-intellectualism. I have a couple friends who teach in inner-city school system. When black kids do well in school, they're taunted and teased by their classmates for "acting white". There's a strong cultural pressure not to stick out or excel.
3.) Gang warfare and revenge killings. There was a shooting a block away from my workplace a couple of years ago. A few gang members had apparently been slighted, so they got in a car, hunted down the rival gang member responsible, and shot him in a drive-by.
1) Obsession with personal status isn't one of the points of Thar, at least not as expressed by the collecting of property. And black kids aren't alone in buying clothes that outwardly indicate their high price, although they might be alone in buying rainbow colored AF1's.
2) Anti-intellectualism is an interesting point which I'll grant does show itself in middle and high school aged kids. I think if you ask those kids (or their parents) if education is important, however, I think they'll all say yes. I haven't actually tried it, but I've never met a high school dropout (of any race) who didn't regret it. Inner city schools are filled with kids who, by high school, have often given up on themselves, and the "acting white" expressions are sort of a outward expression of that frustration. Rather than muddle this too much with socioeconomic rhetoric, I'll just say that one look at MySpace and another at Facebook demonstrates there are plenty of kids steeped deep in hiphop culture who are getting their four year degrees.
3) Gang warfare among blacks is probably comparable in degree to that seen with the Mafia and various Hispanic gangs. I don't think your standard Italians, Hispanics, or black people are gang banging, no matter how hiphop or "urban" they are.
Try looking a little:
But I agree -- the article meandered a bit and one could draw various conclusions. I couldn't see anything racist, though. Seems like any more, people stick the racism label onto anything that might be critical of any sort of generic category of people. I guess if we say fat people are happy we would be accused of racism. It's just a poor choice of words, that's all my comment meant to point out.
- Restrictions on the free flow of information.
- The subjugation of women.
- Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
- The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
- Domination by a restrictive religion.
- A low valuation of education.
- Low prestige assigned to work.
Given that, Dark-Ages European cultures matches most if not all of those traits.
As a tangential note, Malcolm Gladwell, author of Tipping Point and Blink wrote about these guys who were able to figure things out from people because they have studied the way people make faces. They categorized facial expressions. They were able to distinguish between two South American tribe based photographs of the individuals within each of the tribes. One tribe is very friendly. The other is not -- includes a lot of the attributes listed in 'Spotting the Losers'.
The caveat is that face reading like this is a specialty that requires a lot of training. Would be interesting to write software that can suggest cultural influences though, then run it through say, all the American news footage and see what kind of subcultures we have here.
You hit on an interesting startup topic, though. Is it possible to algorithmically determine cultures and sub-cultures by biometrics, writing analysis, web sites visited, or some other factor? Aside from the big brother implications, there's actually a real market need -- people who belong to the same "clans" usually like spending time together on the web. Any way to make that easier should have value. In the information age, it's very possible that people belong to some sub-culture that they are not even aware of.
It is racism in its purest form.
Nazi Germany was a culture, a society. It was a brutal, horrible thing that should be despised for the many faults it had. Mongol society was a barbaric, violent, awful society and culture that should be shunned. Paleolithic tribal societies were also brutish, superstitious, harsh, and murderous towards themselves and outsiders. Many were also cannibals.
How is this in any way disparaging Germans, Mongolians, or people who may have come from a tribal background?
E-gad, man. We have to be able to make comparisons of how various things work. Some cultures work better than others. Sure, stupid people will extrapolate that to say that the _people_ in those cultures are good or bad. But stupid people do stupid things. That's no reason at all to give up on our duty as sentient beings to make comparisons and judgments. We don't give up living in houses simply because some stupid people burn them down. Why would we give up the Enlightenment because some cultures never grasped it?
However:
>Mongol society was a barbaric, violent, awful society and culture that should be shunned.
Bullshit. Mongol society was different than western society. They had a tremendously effective military, but they were also known for tremendous religious tolerance, placing an importance on education and arts (teachers, lawyers and artists paid no taxes). It had basically no crime within the empire.
They built the largest empire the world has ever seen. If you honestly think they did that by walking around like jackbooted thugs, you sir are a fool.
Of course, they weren't perfect, but neither are we. To say something like the Mogols were "a barbaric, violent, awful society and culture that should be shunned" while blissfully ignoring the faults of our own culture is woefully ignorant and arrogant at the same time.
>Why would we give up the Enlightenment because some cultures never grasped it?
I'm not asking you to. I suggesting that the Enlightenment is but one path to the destination.
I would argue that this discussion has now reached such a point of vagueness that for all you know you could be saying the same things, and that since any actual disagreement between you is smaller than the (enormous) imprecision of each of your statements, all that's left driving this is your animosity to one another.
Sure, if we take the accounts of medieval writers faced with looking at the tip of their spears. My point is that the same point of view would hold true for a Gaul facing the cruelty of the Roman legions. Neither representation is entirely accurate.
Being that the advancement of both commerce, trade and wealth under Rome and Khan are very similar, and collectively in fact point to the successes of warrior societies, the post author's point is rather shaky. To suggest that empires that lasted longer than any modern democracy has are backward and unstable is simply wrong.
The main issue I have is that we seem to forget that we're still dominated by a society (the US) that is very much a product of the warrior ethos. To say that we are somehow superior to an Arab world that still practices an outward version of "Thar" while completely disregarding that we ourselves have done the same - nay, actually denying it - is so shortsighted that it can only be described as racist.
I'm saying that having tens of thousands of people show up on horseback ready to invade Vienna isn't exactly a calling card for Mongol politeness. Sure the Mongols did good things! Tell you what? Let's take apart the good and bad things and compare and contrast them with other cultures, shall we? And maybe, after doing that for a while, we can come up with a list of attributes that make cultures better or worse. Which is exactly we started this conversation. LOL
"Of course they weren't perfect, but neither are we." Okey dokey. Do you understand that such statements completely alleviate the speaker of any obligation to continue analysis? Ted Bundy had a lot of faults, but who among us is perfect? Jack The Ripper may have done some bad things, but aren't we all flawed in some way? Cannibals ate your parents, but hey, don't we all get a little hungry now and then? I could go on, but I honestly don't mean to have fun at your expense.
Yes, there are good and bad things anywhere. Our duty as intelligent people is to take apart what works and what doesn't and keep building on what works. Not to just cast an unfocused eye on the world and say something like "looks all about the same to me. We all are in our journeys on our own paths." -- these sentiments, while sounding great, are not helpful to either us or other people.
I'm not talking about enlightenment, I'm talking about The Enlightenment -- the awakening in the west that things like freedom, rights, rationalism, and an open society were prerequisites to change and growth, and that societies that changed and grew were happier places to be. The world keeps changing -- it is not something that is up for debate. Societies/Cultures that embrace certain values are able to change along with it. Those that do not are not. It's been that way since recorded history.
Is that what you tell the people of Iraq? How about Iran? How about Nicaragua? Vietnam?
You're comparing living inside an empire to being conquered by one and have the gall to suggest that you are morally superior?
Instead of making my day, you've got me crying. For someone who speaks highly of the Enlightenment, you sure have a long way to go in understanding the principles.
And I never said I was morally superior to anybody. Come now, think about this. I said that certain attributes work better than certain other ones. Cultures who have more or less of these attributes or more or less effective at very important things. It has nothing to do with me or any country or culture that I am a part of. In fact, that's the whole point! That those attributes exist outside of the cultures themselves. Isn't it great that we can analyze, compare, contrast, and discuss those attributes and what they do to help or hinder the happiness of the people who are in those cultures? Don't we have a duty to honestly and politely engage in conversations with people of other cultures so that they can help us as much as we help them? Moral superiority has nothing to do with it. A culture full of bad attributes is not such a hot place to live. There are, I'm sure, many more attributes that the ones we have today, and as long as we keep our heads on our shoulders we can continue to find them. In fact, it doesn't take much imagination to see that western culture is probably just as barbaric and brutish to some alien civilization as some cultures are to us. And that's exactly why we can't get lost in some kind of moral relativism: we've got a lot more work to do.
The word is meaningful, or at least once was. But as with the names of fashion brands, it's a bad sign if it occurs a lot in your conversation.
"The thar mentality can be said to include these features. They vary in degree from person to person and place to place but if we find all or most of them in a society we can justly apply the label thar.
Extreme importance of personal status and sensitivity to insult
Acceptance of personal revenge including retaliatory killing
Obsessive male dominance
Paranoia over female sexual infidelity
Primacy of family rights over individual rights"
"While we can find this attitude in Spanish cultures, it's much more virulent, destructive and unmoderated by humor and common sense in other parts of the world."
AKA Spanish cultures do a weak version of X but if you want a real example look at Y and Z cultures.
It was formalized in Tokugawa times, but goes back to the 9th century in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido) and bears a strong resemblance to the warrior ethic described in many Chinese folk tales. (These tales were collected, very late, into the Romance of the Three Kingdoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms).)
The only way to get rid of it is for everybody to forget about its existence.
For an interesting read along these lines, try "Culture Cult" -- excellent book.
the author then goes out to enumerate scenarios to argue how thar mentality might cause poverty.
I agree, thar mentality can cause poverty. But again, poverty can cause thar mentality. Imagine you are poor destitute. All you probably have to defend is your honor, or that your wife (if u are lucky to have one) is not doing someone else.
In the end, I dont know if thar mentality. causes poverty or vice versa. Maybe, they are both caused by some other factor. What I do know is that the Author needs to do a better job than this, Unless all he wants is to appease western cultural supremacists. In that case, he is doing exactly the right thing.
"But thar is one of innumerable cases where the "natural" response to a problem is the one that will make the problem worse in the fastest possible way."
Our natural response to retaliate, and in the process, attack the wrong country....so thar
Powerful groups wanted the US to attack Iraq before 9/11 made US voters easy to convince.
There's an interesting discussion about why democratic nations go to war. If there is a mixed number of reasons and a volunteer army, which are the actual reasons we fight? I just read read a blog entry by an Army 1st Lt. killed last year who made the argument that he was joining up to stop oppression. To do something and make a difference. I also hear a lot of folks talk about leaders with supposedly bad intentions who "got us into this." So when a president and congress vote on something, and people volunteer to do it, is it possible to assign any one reason to why it's being done?
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. Probably get downmodded again for this comment. Have at it, then.
How people who were alive and had a front row seat to Vietnam let this happen escapes me. It was very clear from the mixed reasons given, along with the silencing of dissent and rush to attack that there were ulterior reasons for invasion.
Coupled with the quotes from senior admin officials "cakewalk", "oil will pay for it", "done in a few weeks", and the end of this fiasco was as clear and predictable as day to me.
But I digress. And feel free to disagree.
But the other side were also thinkers. Thinkers can disagree. The wonderful thing about both startups and politics is that if you are wrong, somebody else will come along and be right. The parallel extends in that sometimes we work on incomplete information. Additionally, traction on the ground is all that matters, hence the reason why we should all know a little more about COIN (COunter INsurgency) today than one year ago.
I was too young to remember the politics around Vietnam. I had an uncle who volunteered in the Marines, only to be sent to California instead. He was very disappointed. I know that hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese left the communist invasion to go wherever they could. I feel certain that South Vietnam could have held against the North had we not cut off all of their support in Congress. But I am not a military expert, so what do I know?
Communism is not bad, as in moral terms. It is bad in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. More people are happy under capitalism. That doesn't make Capitalism right, it just makes it more "right" than other systems. "right" is a term that needs further definition before you can comment on it.
As a side note, I would have not supported the invasion of Iraq had I not felt that we as a country were in it for no matter what it took. Fighting a war is a horrible thing, and if it is necessary, it doesn't become "not necessary" once the bill gets too high, the deaths get too high, or the newspapers start trashing your political party (not that I am a Republican.) Wars are not football games. Nobody wins in a war. But yet the applied use of physical violence seems to be a constant in the reality I live in. It also seems obvious that it is a duty on each of us to determine the rules by which such violence should be fostered on others. It is not sufficient to make blanket statements -- each of us owes our society a reason when and why we would or would not use violence. I think this responsibility for analysis is missing. Perhaps because most people feel more like spectators than participants.
We use terms like "bad" "good" "right" "wrong" to signify some serious and nuanced opinions. It makes sense to take the time to explain ourselves. Thanks for calling me on it. Apologies if I continue to offend folks and get down-modded again.
If only our elected leadership thought like this. At least you went through the process and were willing to accept the consequences.
We were led into this as if it were a football game, and the public bought it. I remember arguing with people about the cost in lives, and they were pissed at people like Susan Sarandon because "they don't have to pay high gas prices. What are those stars worried for?". The whole "shut up and sing" anti-analytical thought process in the run-up showed me how amenable the public is to control with fear. I counted at least 4 changes in the rationale for war within a week by Bush during this time period, and it didn't seem to matter to anyone but me.
I figured, "maybe I'm too skeptical and they know something I don't". If only that were the case. Due to the football game cakewalk mentality of our leadership, we have had 5 years of hillbilly armor, extended tours of duty, an insurgency, thousands dead, etc. It didn't have to be this way.
Again, thanks for your opinion and glad someone else is thinking.
Neither seppuku (suicide with a helper) nor harikari (the solo version) were matters of "killing yourself if you get super pissed and can't find anybody else to kill" (as per Real Ultimate Power). They were a means of averting the wrath of an indiscriminate government, which would punish your entire family if you failed to make up for your shame in the appropriate way. Of course, your family would not be happy about this -- the option of "do it yourself or your family gets it!" drives a wedge between the family and the individual, strengthening the position of the central government by a large margin.
With a government so strong that it can even make people kill themselves, who needs to go around enforcing one's honor by wildly killing people? The strength of the government encourages order, both discouraging revenge and the slights that lead to it. Disputes go through "official channels" and people have confidence in their resolution.
In lieu of "the rule of law", people are more inclined to take justice into their own hands. When there is no law to cover a certain trade or group, honor killing often reasserts itself. Consider Asian gang members in San Francisco who traffic in narcotics -- when one cheats another, they have no one to turn to for dispute resolution, so it's killing time!
So many things are bundled up in that article -- misogyny, honor killing, notions of honor, backwardness, privilege -- but it is important to acknowledge that "Texas Justice" (lolz) is present whenever the sheriff is absent, weak or corrupt. Take a bunch of "Enlightenment" people, put them out in the middle of nowhere with some guns and, voila, you've got Thar!
the author either knows nothing about the subject or never saw the experiment deployed