3 ms·

I understand there are extreme cases like the Nazis. I'll say something about that below. But I'm not sure we can group the Aztecs in with them, certainly not t

I understand there are extreme cases like the Nazis. I'll say something about that below. But I'm not sure we can group the Aztecs in with them, certainly not to the point that so much of their culture was destroyed as it was. Also worth nothing they weren't sailing around the world conquering peoples. Yes, maybe they were doing it at home, but Spanish culture is the one that survives, even though they also behaved abbhorently. And I love Spanish culture even though they did. I wish Ï could enjoy Aztec culture in a similar way. I disagree that Japan and Germany had their cultures eradicated. Both nations maintain rich cultural traditions and express them within the safe bounds of their nation states. What happend in meso-America was much closer to the kind of eradication of cultures the Nazis wanted to see, which was the reason they are so reviled. And just to say I don't think it's fair to say pacifism is a fringe idea. Many of our world's states are officially pacifistic, many of our greatest philosophers have subscribed to it and there have been mass movements for peace which in some cases have resulted in decolonisation or have bolstered democratic opposition in war time.

philwelch 3y ago
> But I'm not sure we can group the Aztecs in with them, certainly not to the point that so much of their culture was destroyed as it was. Also worth nothing they weren't sailing around the world conquering peoples. The Aztec empire was only about a hundred years old when it fell. They were very active conquerors on top of committing human sacrifice. > I disagree that Japan and Germany had their cultures eradicated. Both nations maintain rich cultural traditions and express them within the safe bounds of their nation states. What happend in meso-America was much closer to the kind of eradication of cultures the Nazis wanted to see, which was the reason they are so reviled. Seven million Mexicans today are fluent in indigenous languages while between 11-23 million identify or are identified as indigenous, so clearly their cultures weren’t eradicated in the same way that the Nazis sought eradication. It’s all a matter of degree. For what it’s worth I agree that these things should be carefully targeted only at the most dangerous and problematic aspects of a culture, but of course, how else are we going to decide which aspects of a foreign culture are “problematic” except by comparison to our own cultural values? Also, cultural assimilation is never quite so targeted. How many countries can you name whose leaders don’t wear Western suits and ties or where nobody plays soccer or where you can’t find a McDonalds? (And before you say Russia, they basically transformed all of their McDonalds into a knockoff Russian brand that is still basically McDonalds). > And just to say I don't think it's fair to say pacifism is a fringe idea. Many of our world's states are officially pacifistic… There’s probably a single digit number of countries that don’t have a military, and one of them (Iceland) is nonetheless a NATO member with foreign security guarantees so I wouldn’t even count them as pacifist.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  > The Aztec empire was only about a hundred years old when it fell. They were very active conquerors on top of committing human sacrifice. I'm aware. I was aware when I said I don't believe we can group them in with the Nazis. Are you saying we can? > Seven million Mexicans today are fluent in indigenous languages while between 11-23 million identify or are identified as indigenous I'm not ready to conflate language with the practice of a culture or the self determination of a people. > Also, cultural assimilation is never quite so targeted. How many countries can you name whose leaders don’t wear Western suits and ties or where nobody plays soccer or where you can’t find a McDonalds? I don't know what you're saying here. > There’s probably a single digit number of countries that don’t have a military, and one of them (Iceland) is nonetheless a NATO member with foreign security guarantees so I wouldn’t even count them as pacifist. I think you've done a disservice to what I said by focusing on a particular aspect that you personally disagree with. The point still stands that pacifism is not a "fringe" idea. You might not believe pacifist countries are "truly" pacifist by your definition, but the rhetoric of pacifism is part of mainstream politics in many parts of the world. You can read about various peace movements globally here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pacifism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pacifism_by_country
  - philwelch 3y ago
    > I was aware when I said I don't believe we can group them in with the Nazis. Are you saying we can? Considering the fact that they were an aggressive, conquering empire that committed institutional mass murder, yes, they’re roughly equivalent to the Nazis. Why wouldn’t they be? > I'm not ready to conflate language with the practice of a culture or the self determination of a people. It demonstrates that the culture wasn’t completely eradicated, just like the cultures of Germany and Japan weren’t completely eradicated. And I think you’re kidding yourself if you actually think either of those countries had real self-determination after the war. Besides, what makes you think self-determination is so important? That’s just your cultural value that you’re trying to impose! That’s the deeper point I was making that you’ve completely glossed over. > I don't know what you're saying here. Food, clothing, popular sports, etc. are all aspects of culture, and many of them are becoming globally homogenized, which represents the eradication of culture. Whatever clothing high status Chinese or Japanese or African men wore in previous centuries has all but disappeared in favor of Western suits, for instance. If anything this completely superficial and harmless piece of culture has replaced other cultural expressions far more successfully than the explicit values that the West has been explicitly trying to propagate, like “human rights” or “feminism”. > You might not believe pacifist countries are "truly" pacifist by your definition, but the rhetoric of pacifism is part of mainstream politics in many parts of the world. When push comes to shove, almost nobody actually believes it. The rhetoric is just rhetoric that’s usually contingent on how a specific conflict is perceived. Most of those who opposed the war in Iraq now support the war in Ukraine for instance.

philwelch 3y ago

> But I'm not sure we can group the Aztecs in with them, certainly not to the point that so much of their culture was destroyed as it was. Also worth nothing they weren't sailing around the world conquering peoples. The Aztec empire was only about a hundred years old when it fell. They were very active conquerors on top of committing human sacrifice. > I disagree that Japan and Germany had their cultures eradicated. Both nations maintain rich cultural traditions and express them within the safe bounds of their nation states. What happend in meso-America was much closer to the kind of eradication of cultures the Nazis wanted to see, which was the reason they are so reviled. Seven million Mexicans today are fluent in indigenous languages while between 11-23 million identify or are identified as indigenous, so clearly their cultures weren’t eradicated in the same way that the Nazis sought eradication. It’s all a matter of degree. For what it’s worth I agree that these things should be carefully targeted only at the most dangerous and problematic aspects of a culture, but of course, how else are we going to decide which aspects of a foreign culture are “problematic” except by comparison to our own cultural values? Also, cultural assimilation is never quite so targeted. How many countries can you name whose leaders don’t wear Western suits and ties or where nobody plays soccer or where you can’t find a McDonalds? (And before you say Russia, they basically transformed all of their McDonalds into a knockoff Russian brand that is still basically McDonalds). > And just to say I don't think it's fair to say pacifism is a fringe idea. Many of our world's states are officially pacifistic… There’s probably a single digit number of countries that don’t have a military, and one of them (Iceland) is nonetheless a NATO member with foreign security guarantees so I wouldn’t even count them as pacifist.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
> The Aztec empire was only about a hundred years old when it fell. They were very active conquerors on top of committing human sacrifice. I'm aware. I was aware when I said I don't believe we can group them in with the Nazis. Are you saying we can? > Seven million Mexicans today are fluent in indigenous languages while between 11-23 million identify or are identified as indigenous I'm not ready to conflate language with the practice of a culture or the self determination of a people. > Also, cultural assimilation is never quite so targeted. How many countries can you name whose leaders don’t wear Western suits and ties or where nobody plays soccer or where you can’t find a McDonalds? I don't know what you're saying here. > There’s probably a single digit number of countries that don’t have a military, and one of them (Iceland) is nonetheless a NATO member with foreign security guarantees so I wouldn’t even count them as pacifist. I think you've done a disservice to what I said by focusing on a particular aspect that you personally disagree with. The point still stands that pacifism is not a "fringe" idea. You might not believe pacifist countries are "truly" pacifist by your definition, but the rhetoric of pacifism is part of mainstream politics in many parts of the world. You can read about various peace movements globally here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pacifism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pacifism_by_country
- philwelch 3y ago
  > I was aware when I said I don't believe we can group them in with the Nazis. Are you saying we can? Considering the fact that they were an aggressive, conquering empire that committed institutional mass murder, yes, they’re roughly equivalent to the Nazis. Why wouldn’t they be? > I'm not ready to conflate language with the practice of a culture or the self determination of a people. It demonstrates that the culture wasn’t completely eradicated, just like the cultures of Germany and Japan weren’t completely eradicated. And I think you’re kidding yourself if you actually think either of those countries had real self-determination after the war. Besides, what makes you think self-determination is so important? That’s just your cultural value that you’re trying to impose! That’s the deeper point I was making that you’ve completely glossed over. > I don't know what you're saying here. Food, clothing, popular sports, etc. are all aspects of culture, and many of them are becoming globally homogenized, which represents the eradication of culture. Whatever clothing high status Chinese or Japanese or African men wore in previous centuries has all but disappeared in favor of Western suits, for instance. If anything this completely superficial and harmless piece of culture has replaced other cultural expressions far more successfully than the explicit values that the West has been explicitly trying to propagate, like “human rights” or “feminism”. > You might not believe pacifist countries are "truly" pacifist by your definition, but the rhetoric of pacifism is part of mainstream politics in many parts of the world. When push comes to shove, almost nobody actually believes it. The rhetoric is just rhetoric that’s usually contingent on how a specific conflict is perceived. Most of those who opposed the war in Iraq now support the war in Ukraine for instance.