6 ms·

I think a lot about how culture is sometimes forcefully changed from without. For example the western values that we hold dear were not really appreciated by in

by zwkrt 7y ago

I think a lot about how culture is sometimes forcefully changed from without. For example the western values that we hold dear were not really appreciated by indigenous people of all the places colonized by Europe. Most colonized people didn’t think “oh I’m so glad we have fiat currency now, we’ve been waiting for it to come along!”[1] Only when your own values are under existential threat do you realize that ways of life are precious to those living them, both the good parts and the bad parts. But once the zeitgeist has arrived, there is no going back. I really do appreciate the values upon which the US government is supposed to be founded. On the other hand, US citizens being worried that another country will subvert their values and bully them into change is a deafening irony. [1] not exactly an academic source: https://youtu.be/m56H4E5bZLk https://youtu.be/m56H4E5bZLk

rayiner 7y ago
> For example the western values that we hold dear were not really appreciated by indigenous people of all the places colonized by Europe. “Indigenous people” often can recognize a good idea when we see one. The constitution of Bangladesh was written by a lawyer educated at Oxford and Norte Dame: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/bangladesh-constitution.pdf http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/bangladesh-constitution.pd... The text,[1] is immediately recognizable to any lawyer familiar with the Anglo legal tradition. It rings with ideas and phrases dating back to John Locke and the Magna Carta. This was not an externally imposed constitution. This was the founding document that Bangladeshis themselves adopted for their new country! There are many people from former colonies that “appreciate” the institutions and values their countries inherited (without white washing what was taken). Fareed Zakaria, for example, has written eloquently about this: https://slate.com/culture/2006/10/the-best-case-for-india.html https://slate.com/culture/2006/10/the-best-case-for-india.ht... > But India does much better in its micro foundations for growth. It has a real, broad, and deep private sector, populated by thousands of enterprising firms. They use capital efficiently (because they get much less of it than China), and they understand capital markets, branding, and sales. The banking system is clean and efficient, secured by British law. That’s why, despite being much smaller and slower-growing as an economy, India has many more world-class firms than China. India will do well because its growth is bottom-up, organic, and spread throughout the country. It is not the product of commands, special zones, and sweetheart deals to multinationals. Even if we think colonialism shouldn't have happened, reversion to indigenous modes is neither possible nor desirable. Maybe the French can afford to faff about and translate everything into their indigenous language, but Bangladeshis cannot. We don't have the time or resources to rip "equal protection of law" out of the constitution because it's an American import and, figure out some organic, indigenous replacement. We have to plug into the world that exists now. The question is, what kind of world is best for all these developing democracies? Is it a world where China makes the rules and establishes the norms? One where Saudi does those things? [1] The constitution provides for both English and Bangla translations. Although the Bangla version is the “official” one, the text was debated and drafted in English. It was then translated into Bangla before being officially certified.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  But you only got that constitution because the British had to retreat, literally centuries after Locke wrote. Entrenched power had no intentions of giving your people rights before that. Related, the British ran Hong Kong for over a hundred years. Why wasn't it already democratic, prior to handover, if their values are so great? The limited democracy they have was introduced in the 1990s as the clock was running out.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > But you only got that constitution because the British had to retreat, literally centuries after Locke wrote. Entrenched power had no intentions of giving your people rights before that. What difference does that make? The fact that the British denied us the “rights of Englishmen” isn’t a reason to deny them to ourselves! That is cutting our nose off to spite our face. Also, what is the alternative? We go back to Mughal law? They were foreign conquerors too!
    - yourbandsucks 7y ago
      I totally agree, I think we're talking about orthogonal things. You're saying that a good idea should absolutely be taken, whichever culture it came from, which I totally agree with -- I was saying that Western powers (all powers) tend to go after their interests first, and any talk of 'promoting our values abroad' should be greeted with skepticism, given the record. Not that I disagree with the values.

by zwkrt 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

> For example the western values that we hold dear were not really appreciated by indigenous people of all the places colonized by Europe. “Indigenous people” often can recognize a good idea when we see one. The constitution of Bangladesh was written by a lawyer educated at Oxford and Norte Dame: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/bangladesh-constitution.pdf http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/bangladesh-constitution.pd... The text,[1] is immediately recognizable to any lawyer familiar with the Anglo legal tradition. It rings with ideas and phrases dating back to John Locke and the Magna Carta. This was not an externally imposed constitution. This was the founding document that Bangladeshis themselves adopted for their new country! There are many people from former colonies that “appreciate” the institutions and values their countries inherited (without white washing what was taken). Fareed Zakaria, for example, has written eloquently about this: https://slate.com/culture/2006/10/the-best-case-for-india.html https://slate.com/culture/2006/10/the-best-case-for-india.ht... > But India does much better in its micro foundations for growth. It has a real, broad, and deep private sector, populated by thousands of enterprising firms. They use capital efficiently (because they get much less of it than China), and they understand capital markets, branding, and sales. The banking system is clean and efficient, secured by British law. That’s why, despite being much smaller and slower-growing as an economy, India has many more world-class firms than China. India will do well because its growth is bottom-up, organic, and spread throughout the country. It is not the product of commands, special zones, and sweetheart deals to multinationals. Even if we think colonialism shouldn't have happened, reversion to indigenous modes is neither possible nor desirable. Maybe the French can afford to faff about and translate everything into their indigenous language, but Bangladeshis cannot. We don't have the time or resources to rip "equal protection of law" out of the constitution because it's an American import and, figure out some organic, indigenous replacement. We have to plug into the world that exists now. The question is, what kind of world is best for all these developing democracies? Is it a world where China makes the rules and establishes the norms? One where Saudi does those things? [1] The constitution provides for both English and Bangla translations. Although the Bangla version is the “official” one, the text was debated and drafted in English. It was then translated into Bangla before being officially certified.

yourbandsucks 7y ago
But you only got that constitution because the British had to retreat, literally centuries after Locke wrote. Entrenched power had no intentions of giving your people rights before that. Related, the British ran Hong Kong for over a hundred years. Why wasn't it already democratic, prior to handover, if their values are so great? The limited democracy they have was introduced in the 1990s as the clock was running out.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > But you only got that constitution because the British had to retreat, literally centuries after Locke wrote. Entrenched power had no intentions of giving your people rights before that. What difference does that make? The fact that the British denied us the “rights of Englishmen” isn’t a reason to deny them to ourselves! That is cutting our nose off to spite our face. Also, what is the alternative? We go back to Mughal law? They were foreign conquerors too!
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    I totally agree, I think we're talking about orthogonal things. You're saying that a good idea should absolutely be taken, whichever culture it came from, which I totally agree with -- I was saying that Western powers (all powers) tend to go after their interests first, and any talk of 'promoting our values abroad' should be greeted with skepticism, given the record. Not that I disagree with the values.