From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Organization: The Nibelungenlied Incorporated
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:10:25 GMT

In article <19785@ector.cs.purdue.edu> cutchin@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Cutchin) writes:
>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:
>  
>     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 destructon)
>    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.

OBJECTION ! The Westerners are by no means anyhow more guilty in mass destruct-
oin than any other culture. In fact the Westerners are absolute beginners in 
tis area. Or don't you call, for example, the slaughter of some 120 million 
Chinese during the Mongol Conquest as "mass destruction" ? Or the Japanese
practise during the 30's in China ? 

Besides, you do not need Western technology for a genocide. Plain swords and
bows, like those of the Mongols, will do. It is not the fault of the Western
civilization, if its achievments are abused. Again, GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE,
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. And gunpowder is a Chinese invention.
>>   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

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Period. It doesn't make any differ-
ence, who invented the means, it is only the question of their users.

>    "Sixteenth century Spanish Catholicism had many faults
>     and has long been intellectually and morally obsolete.  
>        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.  

Ahh, everything is so relative. True, the 16C Spanish Catholism has been
long morally and intellectually obsolete, but it was not that during the
16th century. 16C Spanish Catholism should not be compared with the Cath-
olism today (or any other philosophy today), but with the Aztec religion
during the 16th century. Just get yourself acquiainted with them both and
make a comparison. I would agree with Mr. McCarthy: in a choice of two
bad alternatives you choose the less bad. Catholism was, IMHO, the less bad.


  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
Xref: sparky soc.history:8627 soc.culture.celtic:6290 sci.archaeology:2510