3 ms·

Well I was speaking in a modern context. But if you want to speak about it in a historical context, I would ask you explain what you mean by the "west" and the

Well I was speaking in a modern context. But if you want to speak about it in a historical context, I would ask you explain what you mean by the "west" and the west forcing their values. And I would note you are speaking to someone who's country's been invaded by mongols, ottomans, and russians within the last 1000 years. They all seemed to want to "force" their values on the people living here. Is this a western thing?

bilbo0s 5y ago
I think you guys may be coming from different cultural contexts. In the previous commenter's context the West forcing its ideals informs his/her comments. In your context the mongols, ottomans, and russians forcing their ideals informs your comments. You're both probably right. At the same time, it's ludicrous to tell a, say, Zambian, that no one forced anything on them in the "modern context". When we know we forced everything from their laws, right down to their very borders onto every nation in sub-saharan africa. We even forced them to sign the very treaties we're saying were not forced on them. The leaders who didn't sign, we killed, and put a new leader in place who signed.
- cloutchaser 5y ago
  Zambia, just like Venezuala or Cuba, or North Korea, is free to leave whatever system was forced on them by the west. And they can probably steal western trade secrets without many repercussions. Hungary and Poland can test whether they can get outside of the EU's legal jurisdictions and whether they can lead decent lives doing that. Just to reitirate, ultimately these things are actually voluntary. But they come with consequences. And it's not like these western values of trade, and individual rights are really western any more, when Japan and Korea has had success with them, arguably China was well (before Xi). But there are consequences if you want to go it alone, and it's questionable whether other economic systems actually work as well.
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    The Zambians have opted out. Have you been there recently? The people there have taken the Chinese opportunity and run with it, probably because of what they perceived to be a lack of opportunity in the Western system. I think as the West attempts to keep some of these nations in Western orbit, we need to more openly acknowledge some of the issues our system has caused them in the past. Then we should lay out for them a credible reset that compares favorably to their Chinese opportunity. Absent that, the Chinese will continue to gain outsized influence across Africa because Africans will continue to make decisions that really are just common sense in the current context. Larger point being that we can't simply claim we have not forced anything on people and these places are acting irrationally. From the perspective of a lot of places outside of the West, things have been forced on them, and they are beginning to take what are, from their perspective, perfectly rational actions to rectify these issues.
- blagie 5y ago
  No, we're not all probably right. You're right. I'm right. cloutchaser is simply making posts ignorant of cultures and history. This is not uniquely western, but his list is just wrong: - Mongols did not force ideals or cultures on the people they conquered. If you surrendered and paid tribute, you were free to do as you pleased. - The Ottomans were mixed; you were pressured but not forced. Non-Muslims, for example, paid higher taxes. Most long-lived empires let people do their thing. The Romans lasted for a millennium, and finally collapsed when (and in part because) they tried to impose Roman values on everyone, and that turned out to be more expensive than the empire could sustain. These also aren't historic; I posted examples from the 1800s, but also recent ones. The comment about Korea and individualism is just crazy too; Korea is probably the most deeply Confucian culture left. Pointing out all of the historic and cultural errors would be an essay longer than the comments.
  - cloutchaser 5y ago
    You conveniently left out the Russians/soviets. And what you say about ottomans is also wrong. You should speak to historians in the affected countries. Mongols - perhaps you are right, if you were left alive, which was mostly women and children. So I guess for them they got to live free in the mongol empire...?
    - blagie 5y ago
      I left out the Russians because they did impose quite a lot. In theory, the entire goal was to spread Communist ideology. In practice, it was a lot more imperialistic than that, but you were definitely under a boot. The level of ignorance here is staggering. The Mongols were pretty straightforward. For the most part, they would politely ask you to surrender. If you did, you were left alone to live as you saw fit, as part of a trade network, Mongol-friendly governance, and paying tribute. No one got killed. If you fought and lost, there was wholesale slaughter. Everyone got killed. There were a few in-betweens. There was no scenario like the one you're describing. The in-betweens might, for example, have skilled workers and artisans carted off. I won't get into a back-and-forth about the Ottomans. You have no idea my background, and you presume too much. You have no idea who I am, or whom I've spoken to.

bilbo0s 5y ago

I think you guys may be coming from different cultural contexts. In the previous commenter's context the West forcing its ideals informs his/her comments. In your context the mongols, ottomans, and russians forcing their ideals informs your comments. You're both probably right. At the same time, it's ludicrous to tell a, say, Zambian, that no one forced anything on them in the "modern context". When we know we forced everything from their laws, right down to their very borders onto every nation in sub-saharan africa. We even forced them to sign the very treaties we're saying were not forced on them. The leaders who didn't sign, we killed, and put a new leader in place who signed.

cloutchaser 5y ago
Zambia, just like Venezuala or Cuba, or North Korea, is free to leave whatever system was forced on them by the west. And they can probably steal western trade secrets without many repercussions. Hungary and Poland can test whether they can get outside of the EU's legal jurisdictions and whether they can lead decent lives doing that. Just to reitirate, ultimately these things are actually voluntary. But they come with consequences. And it's not like these western values of trade, and individual rights are really western any more, when Japan and Korea has had success with them, arguably China was well (before Xi). But there are consequences if you want to go it alone, and it's questionable whether other economic systems actually work as well.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  The Zambians have opted out. Have you been there recently? The people there have taken the Chinese opportunity and run with it, probably because of what they perceived to be a lack of opportunity in the Western system. I think as the West attempts to keep some of these nations in Western orbit, we need to more openly acknowledge some of the issues our system has caused them in the past. Then we should lay out for them a credible reset that compares favorably to their Chinese opportunity. Absent that, the Chinese will continue to gain outsized influence across Africa because Africans will continue to make decisions that really are just common sense in the current context. Larger point being that we can't simply claim we have not forced anything on people and these places are acting irrationally. From the perspective of a lot of places outside of the West, things have been forced on them, and they are beginning to take what are, from their perspective, perfectly rational actions to rectify these issues.
blagie 5y ago
No, we're not all probably right. You're right. I'm right. cloutchaser is simply making posts ignorant of cultures and history. This is not uniquely western, but his list is just wrong: - Mongols did not force ideals or cultures on the people they conquered. If you surrendered and paid tribute, you were free to do as you pleased. - The Ottomans were mixed; you were pressured but not forced. Non-Muslims, for example, paid higher taxes. Most long-lived empires let people do their thing. The Romans lasted for a millennium, and finally collapsed when (and in part because) they tried to impose Roman values on everyone, and that turned out to be more expensive than the empire could sustain. These also aren't historic; I posted examples from the 1800s, but also recent ones. The comment about Korea and individualism is just crazy too; Korea is probably the most deeply Confucian culture left. Pointing out all of the historic and cultural errors would be an essay longer than the comments.
- cloutchaser 5y ago
  You conveniently left out the Russians/soviets. And what you say about ottomans is also wrong. You should speak to historians in the affected countries. Mongols - perhaps you are right, if you were left alive, which was mostly women and children. So I guess for them they got to live free in the mongol empire...?
  - blagie 5y ago
    I left out the Russians because they did impose quite a lot. In theory, the entire goal was to spread Communist ideology. In practice, it was a lot more imperialistic than that, but you were definitely under a boot. The level of ignorance here is staggering. The Mongols were pretty straightforward. For the most part, they would politely ask you to surrender. If you did, you were left alone to live as you saw fit, as part of a trade network, Mongol-friendly governance, and paying tribute. No one got killed. If you fought and lost, there was wholesale slaughter. Everyone got killed. There were a few in-betweens. There was no scenario like the one you're describing. The in-betweens might, for example, have skilled workers and artisans carted off. I won't get into a back-and-forth about the Ottomans. You have no idea my background, and you presume too much. You have no idea who I am, or whom I've spoken to.