4 ms·
Bleh Sweeping generalization after sweeping generalization, this article not only provides no substance, but then starts bringing up some of the stupidest "wha
by astine 18y ago
Bleh
Sweeping generalization after sweeping generalization, this article not only provides no substance, but then starts bringing up some of the stupidest "what if" scenarios I've ever read.
"What if Asia all of a sudden started doing well economically?" -- Has this person been under a rock for the past 50 years? East Asia has consistently grown economically since the mid 20th century and and some nations currently rank with the nations of the Western World: Japan, Singapore, South Korea, etc.
Granted, some Asian economies have their problems, but so do many so called individualist Western economies. Mexico, for example, is easily no better off than China.
- gojomo 18y agoIt's an 800-word op-ed column. The essence of the form is generalizations, vague trend-spotting, and suggestive questions. You've also deceptively misquoted the article to make it easier to mock. Brooks' actual question is "What happens if collectivist societies, especially those in Asia, rise economically and come to rival the West?" There's a lot more nuance to that question than your rephrasing, and Brooks is just as aware of Japan, Singapore, and South Korea as you are.
- astine 18y agoI didn't quote him, I paraphrased him, If the quotation marks put you off, then I'm sorry. However, the answer is the same. 'Collectivist,' Asian societies have risen economically and do rival the West. Even the many of the Communist ones which are collectivist, not due to their Asianess, but due to a certain Western import.
- gaius 18y agoOne of the interesting things about the world is that it has provided a laboratory in which we can actually see. Compare East and West Germany pre-unification. Compare North and South Korea. Compare Cuba and Florida.