9 ms·

> 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, conque

> 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.
- philwelch 3y ago
  > 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. Why does that matter to you? Why don’t you simply believe, as most cultures throughout history effectively believed, that might makes right and that the ability to conquer equals the right to govern? You hold a very specific set of cultural values that you arrogantly imagine to hold the status of “universal human rights” which are fundamentally rooted in Christian humanism. > How can you say this when there is ample evidence against it? Even in Ukraine there are conscientious objectors choosing not to fight. I never claimed that genuine pacifists didn’t exist, only that they are a fringe, which is true.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I take it you agreed with everything else I said about language etc? > Why does that matter to you? I grew up in a post-colonial society and know how painful it can be. I believe that there are structures in place in the society I live in that perpetuate systemic disadvantage to the cultures of others, and that they effectively do so in my name. I am aghast at the behaviour of Europe in the past and feel a sense of responsibility to understand and fight against modern day imperialism. > You hold a very specific set of cultural values that you arrogantly imagine to hold the status of “universal human rights” which are fundamentally rooted in Christian humanism. I would ask you not to call me arrogant. I explained the short comings of my language. I disagree with Westphalian defaultism. > Why don’t you simply believe, as most cultures throughout history effectively believed, that might makes right and that the ability to conquer equals the right to govern? Why would I? I have my own set of beliefs and my own cultural background. I don't believe the Spanish were right then because they had more might. I don't believe the Nazis were more right than the people they eradicated. I believe the modern Mexican state does inherent violence to the expression of the cultures that came before it. Do you? It seems you're arguing that the cultures that were there weren't eradicated at all and still exists happily, while also telling me to accept that they didn't have enough might to be right and that's why they had to go. > I never claimed that genuine pacifists didn’t exist, only that they are a fringe We might have different definitions of "fringe" then. But the original reason why I commented to you was to take issue with your claim that "everyone agrees that certain cultures deserve to be eradicated."

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.

philwelch 3y ago
> 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. Why does that matter to you? Why don’t you simply believe, as most cultures throughout history effectively believed, that might makes right and that the ability to conquer equals the right to govern? You hold a very specific set of cultural values that you arrogantly imagine to hold the status of “universal human rights” which are fundamentally rooted in Christian humanism. > How can you say this when there is ample evidence against it? Even in Ukraine there are conscientious objectors choosing not to fight. I never claimed that genuine pacifists didn’t exist, only that they are a fringe, which is true.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  I take it you agreed with everything else I said about language etc? > Why does that matter to you? I grew up in a post-colonial society and know how painful it can be. I believe that there are structures in place in the society I live in that perpetuate systemic disadvantage to the cultures of others, and that they effectively do so in my name. I am aghast at the behaviour of Europe in the past and feel a sense of responsibility to understand and fight against modern day imperialism. > You hold a very specific set of cultural values that you arrogantly imagine to hold the status of “universal human rights” which are fundamentally rooted in Christian humanism. I would ask you not to call me arrogant. I explained the short comings of my language. I disagree with Westphalian defaultism. > Why don’t you simply believe, as most cultures throughout history effectively believed, that might makes right and that the ability to conquer equals the right to govern? Why would I? I have my own set of beliefs and my own cultural background. I don't believe the Spanish were right then because they had more might. I don't believe the Nazis were more right than the people they eradicated. I believe the modern Mexican state does inherent violence to the expression of the cultures that came before it. Do you? It seems you're arguing that the cultures that were there weren't eradicated at all and still exists happily, while also telling me to accept that they didn't have enough might to be right and that's why they had to go. > I never claimed that genuine pacifists didn’t exist, only that they are a fringe We might have different definitions of "fringe" then. But the original reason why I commented to you was to take issue with your claim that "everyone agrees that certain cultures deserve to be eradicated."