Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[SentinelSlain]

Kind of yeah.

I said this somewhere else

I was just thinking, the specific kind of racism which could plausibly be credited to the European colonial powers is the combination of early anthropology and racial theories with the economic need for a class of people with which slavery can be justified as well as the need to have the moral high ground in a colonial setting, in the new territories. Well, this, arguably came about around the same time that the predominantly religious self identification found in Europe was replaced with more national or racial ones (aryan etc).

Both Islam and Christianity have been used as justification for the colonization of areas, the enslavement of people and the systematic and institutionalized discrimination against people. I suppose what you have to say is that inequality is a feature of any society that man might fashion for himself, outside of Rousseau's "state of nature" and a specific and repeating scenario is that of very great inequality between specific high points, for example advanced city states or modern Western states and then areas that provide them natural resources. As a we have seen, countless times, any ideology, belief system or widespread prejudice will be exploited by those in or seeking positions of power.

The link between religion and racism is quite apparent for those willing to look into the scripture, with the curse of ham and the jewish deicide / blood curse being the most obvious examples. I believe there is something similar to the curse upon the jews in Islam as well. Again, how surprising that the the people who were the enemies of someone attempting to spread a new ideology and empire have discrimination against them written into scripture. I've linked to articles on dhimmitude in this thread before, although, I will concede that Islamic civilization is often perhaps highlighted in an especially critical manner by orientalists and other scholars with a personal interest in maintaining favourable public opinion on the state of Israel. Anyway, in other words, racism was a rational step away from religious discrimination.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's plenty of reason actually. A lot of people, including scholars, basically say that Islam had its high point and after that, the failure of, for example, Ahmadiyya and Baha'i reform sects to gain the influence that the Wahhabi movement has, has been a failure within Islam.

Also, are you aware of the fact that within the same time span, the entire modern Arab world produced less than about 10% of the copyrights that South Korea has and that most Muslim countries in the world have basically failed to invest in their people and modernise competitively since, well since the modern state system we have now, since the end of Ottoman Empire and so on. Look at the Islamic movements we have now, the Muslim Brotherhood, The Taliban and so on. What a progressive force .

Modernization is only meaningful when compared to what you set as the standard; i.e. Western democratic capitalist innovation. I'm interested as to what scholars you're referring to who claim that Islam already had its "high point." Christianity has likely already had its "high point" as well. If we're saying that Islam has had negative effects, then I certainly agree; but saying that it's completely responsible for the perceived decline in the Middle East is ridiculous.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I think there's such a thing as too much relativism. Imagine what the middle east would be like without oil anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

If we're talking about factual statements, then I'm not being relativist. Factual statements can be tested and falsified. But saying that Islam, as a religious practice, has been worse for the Middle East is a value judgment that we don't have the ability to make. It seems, to me, that you're suggesting that because the Western world is more developed and is largely Christian, while the Middle East is less developed and largely Muslim, then Christianity has thus been "better."

First, that correlation implies nothing beyond the coincidence itself. Second, assuming that Western technology is better for everyone around the world is very presumptuous and based on no factual evidence. Sure, we can measure the effectiveness of having an infrastructure that supplies water as opposed to having to walk to a well every day to get it; while one is certainly factually quicker, it is by no means better for both cultures.

 

[Dak]

Sure, we can measure the effectiveness of having an infrastructure that supplies water as opposed to having to walk to a well every day to get it; while one is certainly factually quicker, it is by no means better for both cultures.

I'm going to take issue with this.

Having clean water delivered mechanically goes along with having waste properly disposed of. These two things alone save more lives (and time) than we can probably imagine.

 

[Einherjar86]

That does not translate into "better," which is what we're concerned with here. There may certainly be people without such an infrastructure who want it, and it should then be brought to/provided/made for them.

However, there are also those who don't have such an infrastructure and don't want it; trying to argue that it would be "better" for them entirely misses the point.

 

[SentinelSlain]

All of this Western bias this and Western bias that is overstated. The truth is that it is the Muslims who have difficulty or disdainfully incorporate ideas from other cultures in their societies.

 

[Einherjar86]

It actually can't be overstated. You're committing it as you speak, as you've committed it countless times in previous posts.

 

[SentinelSlain]

When it's used in the manner which you are referring to it is both endless and pointless. How can we critically look at any culture or nation. Every bad thing probably had an origin that someone could relate to culture or it being "their system" or something. The places we're talking about don't have different economic models anyway, really, they just have socially conservative societies and higher (than the UK) levels of religiosity.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not intended to consign us to relativism. We act presumptuously and ignorantly when we occupy other countries and don't understand why they resist. Having the mentality that our ways are distinctly superior will never convince anyone, and in fact they end up doing more harm than good specifically because other cultures resist. "Better" is not something that can be factually determined, because "better" also includes cultural values and beliefs that accompany material practices while not being measurable alongside them. When you ignore this and focus purely on the material, you invite hostility and resistance.

 

[Dak]

Yeeess Pat. Subjective value systems. Thou art drawing nigh to the dark side.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not advocating democratic pluralism or relativism. This is a necessary starting point for any effective ethics. I'm not positing this and then saying, "Let's just leave everyone to their own belief systems." I'm saying the contingency of any cultural body is automatically equivalent to any other, regardless of technological development. I don't think Native Americans would argue that Western technology was "better" for them than the practices of their ancestors, even if technological innovation has made getting food easier.

 

[Dak]

I was referencing it in terms of economics.

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Cultural relativism is generally problematic for two main reasons, I think. First of all the people who demand of it often have absolute beliefs or are true believers and therefore would presumably be incapable of viewing any other culture in a relativistic manner, as evidenced by the extreme intolerance towards minorities that exists in the Muslim world. Secondly, we live in a globalized world, there are communities of these groups in the Western world and if we allow them to live according to a different set of rules than us then it can create the basis for continued antagonism between them and the current majority group over time. I think the history of the Jews in pre-Modern/Medieval Europe is a good example of this being the case.

 

[Dak]

So your defense is No True Scotsman and appeal to tradition/novelty?

 

[Einherjar86]

Cultural relativism is generally problematic for two main reasons, I think. First of all the people who demand of it often have absolute beliefs or are true believers and therefore would presumably be incapable of viewing any other culture in a relativistic manner, as evidenced by the extreme intolerance towards minorities that exists in the Muslim world.

That's not true. Islamic extremists never espouse cultural relativism. Scholars and politicians do, occasionally, when talking about Islamic extremists. But fundamentalists of any sect never endorse relativism.

Furthermore, I'm not advocating cultural relativism. I'm advocating not believing the West is the savior of the world. Cultural relativism isn't an ethically intellectual position in and of itself, but neither is presumptuous intervention in other countries' affairs. Cultural relativism should merely be a starting point for a truly global and intellectual ethical framework.

Secondly, we live in a globalized world, there are communities of these groups in the Western world and if we allow them to live according to a different set of rules than us then it can create the basis for continued antagonism between them and the current majority group over time. I think the history of the Jews in pre-Modern/Medieval Europe is a good example of this being the case.

I don't understand. I see your point from a legal perspective; but are you saying that the Jews should have been forced to convert to Christianity?

 

[SentinelSlain]

Or just not be allowed to practice things which the Christians weren't. From our point of view it would be better to just generally legalize usury though, and speed up development.

 

[SentinelSlain]

So your defense is No True Scotsman and appeal to tradition/novelty?

Well, I don't think the first point exactly fits into the No True Scotsman fallacy. Large societies and "civilizations" can't lock themselves away from each other very successfully any more, they probably haven't since the Opium wars, it is kind of important that we reach some kind understanding. It's not that they don't apply cultural relativism so we shouldn't, it's more like they don't, so even if we do, there is still a problem.


Secondly, the thing about that that point is that the way human cultures and identities interact with each other seems a little circular and repetitive. In Yugoslavia, people went from apparently being irreligious and concerned with the state identity to being in a bloody ethno-religious conflict, which reawakened all of those identities. I really see no evidence what so ever for this being a point in human history where conflict over religion has reached some kind of end point. Conflict over supposed privileges or discrimination between communities has hardly come to an end either. I used a historical example, but it's not like that was the last example of it and there really is no evidence that people have stopped caring about this type of thing. It actually increased around the end of the Cold War (statistically) and is generally associated with economic failure and the break up of periods of globalisation.

 

[Dak]

That you have an extremely Anglocentric point of view is evidenced by only recalling as far back as the Opium Wars in searching for a time in history when nations "could not avoid each other".

Peoples have been trying to force each other to do as they want them to since "day 1", whether on a local, regional, or global scale. That it sometimes takes the shape of a town hall meeting and sometimes takes the shape of a nuclear bomb doesn't change the underlying issue: Other people shouldn't be your property.