From: cutchin@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Cutchin)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:53:26 GMT
	<JMC.92Sep28214354@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <19764@ector.cs.purdue.edu>
	<1992Sep30.192836.10184@srg.srg.af.mil>
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

In article <1992Sep30.192836.10184@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:

   In article <19764@ector.cs.purdue.edu> cutchin@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Cutchin) writes:
   >
    [ my stuff deleted]

>   Believe it or not, that is a good functional definition in history.
>
>   These cultural aspects are present in most other cultures that have existed
>   in time, when the specifics are removed.  You are just attacking the dominant
>   one - the currently dominant one - because it is there, as it were.  2000
>   years ago, you would have lolled indolently in a Southern Italian resort
>   town, munching grapes and complaining about the treatment of the Gallic
>  tribes in between sips of wine.  This whole bit about cultures being
>   "superior" or "inferior" is bunk, and racist bunk at that.  Cultures are
>   merely different.  You are in fact using the accepted parameters of Western
>   culture - good and evil in opposition - to judge it and others.  This is
>   counterproductive for your argument, I think.

     I'm sorry my article obviously did not do what it was supposed to.
     What I did was select aspects of western culture; primarily mass 
    destruction on a global scale (the west has been great at mass destruction)
    far 'superior' to other cultures.  And then use this as a basis for
    arguing the obvious 'inferiority' of western culture.  Basically I
    did what McCarthy did in reverse.  He selected aspects of western culture
    that he thought were 'superior' and then therefore concluded western 
    culture was 'superior'. However he ignored any negative aspects 
    probably considering them as far outweighed by the 'benefits'.  What
    I did was argue in the same manner.  However I chose the reverse track.
    My real point being that I can make just as good an argument for 
    the 'inferiority' of western culture by choosing the more negative 
    aspects of it and then declare because of this the entire culture
    is 'inferior'.  This is the same method Mr. McCarthy used to state
    western culture was 'superior'.

>  Nor is it universally horrible.  Look at what lack of it did to China's
> current position in the world.  Sometimes progress helps, sometimes it hurts.

   My point was not even whether progress was 'good' or 'bad' but if one
   is to claim 'superiority' of some thing.  One must first define 'superior'
   Something Mr McCarthy did not do.  Ie he listed many things as being
   'superior' aspects of western culture yet never once defined 'superior'
   or why these aspects match his criteria.  I was pointing out that
   many people do not consider many of his listed things as 'superior'.

>   And I am shocked and appalled that you think this stuff is new, unique to
>   current Western society or a change from the past.  Human history is the

    I never said any of this stuff was new.  I never even said bloodshed
    was unique to western culture.  I do claim mass destruction was a product
    of western culture. Primarily through western technology.

>   apply to all parts of the world - India, China, Mongolia, Arabia, Africa,
>   South America, Polynesia...All of these cultural areas have as bloody a
>   history as the current European culture.
      Personally that I don't agree with.  I think the west can claim
      to be more effective in its implementation of mass destruction

>   Whatever the state of John's argument, your criticism of it is way, way off
>   base, and is locked into only the last 150 years or so of history.  Widen that
>   to 4000, and you'll have so many horrible oppressing cultures, you won't 
>   be able to touch a world map without fingering some proto-Hitler. 


>  That is
>   why I find your analysis misdirected.

    I believe you missed my point. It didn't matter what 'negative' aspects
    of western culture I listed.  The listing of a few 'negative' or 'positive'
    aspects of a culture does not imply its 'superiority' or 'inferiority'.

    One should at least define 'superiority', 'world culture', before one
    makes the claim to their being properties of western culture.

    Not to mention that I question the validity of many of the underlying
    assumptions that Mr. McCarthy has made in his post.  Ie that Western
    Culture is politicaly pre-eminent in the 'world'.  There are many many
    simple assertions that Mr. McCarthy states with little or no evidence
    I question all of these.  His statements like

    "Sixteenth century Spanish Catholicism had many faults
     and has long been intellectually and morally obsolete.  It was
     intolerant as shown by the Inquisition, and moreover, its
     adherents often violated its moral precepts.

        Nevertheless, the Spanish victory was substantially a
     consequence of Spanish Catholicism's intellectual and moral
     superiority to Aztec religion and ideology."

     On the one hand he states flatly that Catholism had many faults
     yet blatantly ignores those faults because of some aspect of it
     he finds as 'superior' and then concludes that Spanish Catholicism
     is 'superior' to the Aztec religion.  How can Spanish Catholicism
     make a claim to 'moral superiority' given the 'negative' aspects
     he himself stated.  

     I'd simply like to say to  please define the following
     terms:  'superiority', 'world culture' , 'moral superiority',
     'western culture', and 'culture'.  These terms must be defined
     before one can even begin an discussion about them.
     
>   David Pipes
>   robear@digex.com

----
Steve Cutchin
cutchin@cs.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.indian