4 ms·

I certainly didn't blame the west. I personally think it has done more good than harm in the long term. My only point was that not all cultures take to democr

by mises 7y ago

I certainly didn't blame the west. I personally think it has done more good than harm in the long term. My only point was that not all cultures take to democracy in the same way.

rayiner 7y ago
I was responding to @lostlogin’s response to you.
- mises 7y ago
  Whoops, thanks.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  I don’t entirely follow sorry, could you expand a little on your comment about it being patronising how Americans blame the west? In the Middle East, there are so many bad actors it’s ridiculous. I haven’t consciously encountered Americans blaming the west for the situation in the Middle East. Does the definition of ‘west’ you are using include the US? In case it is relevant, I am from New Zealand and think the disgusting behaviour in the region started long before the US got involved and includes far more countries than any set defined as ‘western’. Even places as far away and as small as New Zealand have ended up with a record of massacres and murders when in involved in the region.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    I’m saying Americans blame the west, not necessarily that Americans blame America. America had very little to do in the subcontinent, for example. As to it being patronizing. Speaking for myself—I think if you can’t blame people for the state of their own country, you’re taking agency away from those people. The British did lots of bad things in the subcontinent and looted it. (They also left some really good values and ideas and institutions.) But that ended 70 years ago. In that same time period, South Korea went from being nearly as poor, and far more war torn, to being a developed nation. It’s not the absence of interference from the west that did that, it’s the industry and virtue of the Korean people. Likewise, to the extent Bangladesh hasn’t grown as fast as it should (and to be fair, things have gotten better at least on the economic side in the last decade), who is to blame? I think it’s patronizing to continue to blame the west. Maybe blame the fact that Bangladeshis supported a military dictator for President, supported dismantling secularism, invited fundamentalism in from the Middle East, etc. Whose fault is it? Maybe it’s the fault of the clerks in the Bangladesh Supreme Court that demand bribes to quickly your filings quickly. If we credit Koreans for the development of their country, Bangladeshis must get their fair share of blame for what is happening in their own country.
    - lostlogin 7y ago
      Thank you for that reply, I see your point and it’s a good one. I think that the two arguments are not in opposition though. It is possible for foreign interference to have harmed democracy in the Middle East and for locals to have damaged it too, and there are plenty of examples of this.

by mises 7y ago

I certainly didn't blame the west. I personally think it has done more good than harm in the long term. My only point was that not all cultures take to democracy in the same way.

rayiner 7y ago

I was responding to @lostlogin’s response to you.

mises 7y ago
Whoops, thanks.
lostlogin 7y ago
I don’t entirely follow sorry, could you expand a little on your comment about it being patronising how Americans blame the west? In the Middle East, there are so many bad actors it’s ridiculous. I haven’t consciously encountered Americans blaming the west for the situation in the Middle East. Does the definition of ‘west’ you are using include the US? In case it is relevant, I am from New Zealand and think the disgusting behaviour in the region started long before the US got involved and includes far more countries than any set defined as ‘western’. Even places as far away and as small as New Zealand have ended up with a record of massacres and murders when in involved in the region.
- rayiner 7y ago
  I’m saying Americans blame the west, not necessarily that Americans blame America. America had very little to do in the subcontinent, for example. As to it being patronizing. Speaking for myself—I think if you can’t blame people for the state of their own country, you’re taking agency away from those people. The British did lots of bad things in the subcontinent and looted it. (They also left some really good values and ideas and institutions.) But that ended 70 years ago. In that same time period, South Korea went from being nearly as poor, and far more war torn, to being a developed nation. It’s not the absence of interference from the west that did that, it’s the industry and virtue of the Korean people. Likewise, to the extent Bangladesh hasn’t grown as fast as it should (and to be fair, things have gotten better at least on the economic side in the last decade), who is to blame? I think it’s patronizing to continue to blame the west. Maybe blame the fact that Bangladeshis supported a military dictator for President, supported dismantling secularism, invited fundamentalism in from the Middle East, etc. Whose fault is it? Maybe it’s the fault of the clerks in the Bangladesh Supreme Court that demand bribes to quickly your filings quickly. If we credit Koreans for the development of their country, Bangladeshis must get their fair share of blame for what is happening in their own country.
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    Thank you for that reply, I see your point and it’s a good one. I think that the two arguments are not in opposition though. It is possible for foreign interference to have harmed democracy in the Middle East and for locals to have damaged it too, and there are plenty of examples of this.