4 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    > 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? So could we say the Spanish were also equivalent to the nazis? Are they equivalent to the nazis today? And did anyone need to eradicate Spanish culture for this change to take place? What about in Britain or the Netherlands? > It demonstrates that the culture wasn’t completely eradicated No, it doesn't. Looking closer to home I can tell you that the Irish language is still spoken despite centuries of measures taken to eradicate it. What no longer exists, however, is the culture that was present prior to the arrival of the the Christians and the British. We literally don't know their beliefs, they were perverted and silenced by those who wrote the histories and set the norms going forwards. At best we have an image. Contrast this to Japan or Germany where our understanding goes back much further. Japan has living traditions older than the furthest date back where we can confidently talk about the practice and belief of the Irish. Neither Japan nor Germany underwent the same level of cultural eradication. > 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. No, quite the contrary. The people you are talking about: where do they live today? Who governs the land they live on? By what laws do they live? Are those laws more rooted in Roman legal structures or Aztec ones? The imposition of a Westphalian style state on them is exactly what I see as evidence of their loss of cultural power. The words I have to describe this are admittedly rooted in European thinking and I wish I had alternatives myself. > Food, clothing, popular sports, etc. are all aspects of culture, and many of them are becoming globally homogenized, which represents the eradication of culture I'm still not sure what you're saying. I agree with you here and I think it's tragic. Cultural imperialism never ended and Europe and her descendants still haven't learned to listen to others. > explicitly trying to propagate, like “human rights” or “feminism”. Almost every part of the world has taken on the European model of statehood. These are almost all signed up as members of the United Nations, which is again rooted in Westphalian thinking. As part of this they make commitments to human rights and to feminist actions. These have created serious change on the ground in many places. I also want to say that it shows a bias to consider these western ideas. Many movements around the world do and have existed in support of personal freedoms and against the continued oppression. And indeed the west is not at all unified in these matters and still has far to go. > When push comes to shove, almost nobody actually believes it. How can you say this when there is ample evidence against it? Even in Ukraine there are conscientious objectors choosing not to fight. Again they might not be "pure" enough for you but the idea that pacifism is fringe or that you can speak better to their true belief than they can is ludicrous.

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.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  > 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? So could we say the Spanish were also equivalent to the nazis? Are they equivalent to the nazis today? And did anyone need to eradicate Spanish culture for this change to take place? What about in Britain or the Netherlands? > It demonstrates that the culture wasn’t completely eradicated No, it doesn't. Looking closer to home I can tell you that the Irish language is still spoken despite centuries of measures taken to eradicate it. What no longer exists, however, is the culture that was present prior to the arrival of the the Christians and the British. We literally don't know their beliefs, they were perverted and silenced by those who wrote the histories and set the norms going forwards. At best we have an image. Contrast this to Japan or Germany where our understanding goes back much further. Japan has living traditions older than the furthest date back where we can confidently talk about the practice and belief of the Irish. Neither Japan nor Germany underwent the same level of cultural eradication. > 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. No, quite the contrary. The people you are talking about: where do they live today? Who governs the land they live on? By what laws do they live? Are those laws more rooted in Roman legal structures or Aztec ones? The imposition of a Westphalian style state on them is exactly what I see as evidence of their loss of cultural power. The words I have to describe this are admittedly rooted in European thinking and I wish I had alternatives myself. > Food, clothing, popular sports, etc. are all aspects of culture, and many of them are becoming globally homogenized, which represents the eradication of culture I'm still not sure what you're saying. I agree with you here and I think it's tragic. Cultural imperialism never ended and Europe and her descendants still haven't learned to listen to others. > explicitly trying to propagate, like “human rights” or “feminism”. Almost every part of the world has taken on the European model of statehood. These are almost all signed up as members of the United Nations, which is again rooted in Westphalian thinking. As part of this they make commitments to human rights and to feminist actions. These have created serious change on the ground in many places. I also want to say that it shows a bias to consider these western ideas. Many movements around the world do and have existed in support of personal freedoms and against the continued oppression. And indeed the west is not at all unified in these matters and still has far to go. > When push comes to shove, almost nobody actually believes it. How can you say this when there is ample evidence against it? Even in Ukraine there are conscientious objectors choosing not to fight. Again they might not be "pure" enough for you but the idea that pacifism is fringe or that you can speak better to their true belief than they can is ludicrous.