5 ms·

> The animosity is mainly a product of western domination tactics Really? The West has only been a dominant force in world affairs for about 500 years and a lo

> The animosity is mainly a product of western domination tactics Really? The West has only been a dominant force in world affairs for about 500 years and a lot of conflict, wars, massacres, and general unpleasantness happened long before then. Animosity between cultures mainly happens because humans are groupish, and bigoted against out-groups. This is true of all human societies. It's nothing specifically to do with the West.

ycombinete 9y ago
This is a very good response, which I hope the person that you responded to will take to heart. I'm always amazed by the historical ignorance of so many people who hold firm geopolitical views though, and sometimes wonder if it is willful. I'd like to add to your post that anyone looking for interesting writing on this subject should have a look at Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind. (Based on the language of you post I think you might have read it?)
- tawel001 9y ago
  > and sometimes wonder if it is willful I think it is. We See What We Want to See and hear what we want to hear [0] Francis Bacon said in 1620 that "the human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate." [1] Biased processing and confirmation bias are most likely to occur when people feel threatened in their beliefs[2] [0] - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/kidding-ourselves/201404/we-see-what-we-want-see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/kidding-ourselves/20140... https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/i-only-hear-what-i-want-hear-and-so-do-you https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/i-only-hear-what-i-... [1] - www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm [2] - http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf Thanks for the book suggestion though.
zabana 9y ago
Absolutely true, but you can't deny that the west has played a massive role in creating chaos in almost every part of the globle (South America, Central America, Central Africa, The Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, the transatlantic slave trade (notice I didn't say "slavery") and so on and so forth ...) I'n not saying it was all sunshine and rainbows before, just that the west exacerbates/manipulates these animosities to create a situation of chaos they can benefit from. (By "the west" I really mean the US and before them the British Empire, again, I have nothing against the people of these countries but history is history ) Syria for example, even though It probably wasn't the best place on earth, as perfectly fine before the US and NATO decided to shower them with the blessing of democracy.
- tariandbari 9y ago
  Take Syria for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Sy... Both NATO and the US had nothing to do with the situation there. In-fact Obama administration made considerable effort not to get involve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Sy... "As countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom debated their response to the attacks, they encountered significant popular and legislative resistance to military intervention" People around the world hated each other long before the west, and they continue to do so long after the west left. Now all there is people from the west that consider other people as irresponsible children that cannot make their own choice
  - pluma 9y ago
    Obama did not want to get directly involved however it seems the CIA was involved before Trump got into office: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-s... Considering the CIA's track record when it comes to interfering in internal armed conflicts throughout the Middle East and South America, I would be careful with the assumption of "if there's no official statement by the US saying they're involved, they're not involved" even if there's a thin line between that and outright conspiracy mongering. There are a lot of conflicts in the world even without Western involvement but the US has a pretty solid track record of interfering in those conflicts to serve their own interests -- and I'm pretty sure the US is not the only one doing it (I'd say Russia but their interference in the Ukraine has been dramatized to the point where some people would assert there wouldn't be a conflict without Russian involvement in the first place).

ycombinete 9y ago

This is a very good response, which I hope the person that you responded to will take to heart. I'm always amazed by the historical ignorance of so many people who hold firm geopolitical views though, and sometimes wonder if it is willful. I'd like to add to your post that anyone looking for interesting writing on this subject should have a look at Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind. (Based on the language of you post I think you might have read it?)

tawel001 9y ago
> and sometimes wonder if it is willful I think it is. We See What We Want to See and hear what we want to hear [0] Francis Bacon said in 1620 that "the human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate." [1] Biased processing and confirmation bias are most likely to occur when people feel threatened in their beliefs[2] [0] - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/kidding-ourselves/201404/we-see-what-we-want-see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/kidding-ourselves/20140... https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/i-only-hear-what-i-want-hear-and-so-do-you https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/i-only-hear-what-i-... [1] - www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm [2] - http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf Thanks for the book suggestion though.

zabana 9y ago

Absolutely true, but you can't deny that the west has played a massive role in creating chaos in almost every part of the globle (South America, Central America, Central Africa, The Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, the transatlantic slave trade (notice I didn't say "slavery") and so on and so forth ...) I'n not saying it was all sunshine and rainbows before, just that the west exacerbates/manipulates these animosities to create a situation of chaos they can benefit from. (By "the west" I really mean the US and before them the British Empire, again, I have nothing against the people of these countries but history is history ) Syria for example, even though It probably wasn't the best place on earth, as perfectly fine before the US and NATO decided to shower them with the blessing of democracy.

tariandbari 9y ago
Take Syria for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Sy... Both NATO and the US had nothing to do with the situation there. In-fact Obama administration made considerable effort not to get involve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Sy... "As countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom debated their response to the attacks, they encountered significant popular and legislative resistance to military intervention" People around the world hated each other long before the west, and they continue to do so long after the west left. Now all there is people from the west that consider other people as irresponsible children that cannot make their own choice
- pluma 9y ago
  Obama did not want to get directly involved however it seems the CIA was involved before Trump got into office: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-s... Considering the CIA's track record when it comes to interfering in internal armed conflicts throughout the Middle East and South America, I would be careful with the assumption of "if there's no official statement by the US saying they're involved, they're not involved" even if there's a thin line between that and outright conspiracy mongering. There are a lot of conflicts in the world even without Western involvement but the US has a pretty solid track record of interfering in those conflicts to serve their own interests -- and I'm pretty sure the US is not the only one doing it (I'd say Russia but their interference in the Ukraine has been dramatized to the point where some people would assert there wouldn't be a conflict without Russian involvement in the first place).