From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

In article <2AC6FD8B.15497@news.service.uci.edu> josh@aris.ss.uci.edu  
(Josh Stern) writes:

I agree with a number of the points that you make, but I think
you tend to overstate your case, dismissing some of the places
where Western Culture did lead the world or at least act
reasonably.

> I mainly leave comment on the `sati question' to other posters, but
> my understanding is that sati was not widespread enough in Colonial
> times so that it should appear as a significant point in a  
discussion
> of Western vs. non-Western civilization.  It would take an awful  
lot
> of sati suppression to make up for the Crusades, 400 years of  
African
> slavery, much genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas  
and
> Australia, and the A-bomb detonation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to 
> mention a few highlights of Western interaction with non-Western 
> cultures. 

All cultures have such in their background, ranging from 
the various invasions of Europe by Mongols and Turks, to the
Japanese atrocities in China and the Phillipines.  This is
not something Western Culture has a monopoly on.

 Also, I don't know how much of sati suppression was motivated 
> by compassion for "the heathen" and how much was motivated by the  
same 
> sort of attitudes which made the British feel a need to supress  
semi-nudity 
> wherever they encountered that ``evil'' practice.

This is a case where you seem to be going out of your way to
belittle the British.  Whatever their faults, the British 
generally wanted to help the colonial peoples. They may have
been condescending about it, but they did look at improving the
lots of other countries to be their duties.  Kipling's "White
Man's Burden,"  as imperialistic and condescending as it sounds to
today's ears, was stating that it was the duty of the British to
send out their best and brightest to help those who were less
fortunate.

> > 	1. In politics.  The rule of law rather than the rule of
> > autocrats or conspiratorial political parties.  The idea of  
democracy
> > and many ideas about human rights.  The idea of national rights  
and of
> > international law.  The idea of political struggle for social  
goals
> > rather than just the oriental ideas of how rulers can be  
virtuous.
> 
> A little more objectivity is called for here.  Basically all  
traditional 
> cultures have laws which their people respect, and grant their  
people 
> rights which they feel are important and to which they are  
entitled.  
> Cultures typically differ substantially in what these laws and  
rights are.
> Unfortunately there are many countries now in which people do not  
have
> many of the rights to which they think they are entitled because  
they
> are ruled over by a small minority using military force.  There is
> no question in my mind that the latter type of situation (e.g.  
Haiti,
> Iraq, South Africa) occurs more often in non-Western countries and  
is
> a bad thing, but there is also no question that these situations  
are
> more attributable to the de-stabilizing influences of Western  
military
> technology and economic exploitation than to differences in  
indigenous
> political cultures.  It is Western military technology which makes  
it
> possible for so few to subordinate so many, and, to some extent, it  
is
> Western economics which gives them the material motivations to do  
so.

No, most of the countries that are autocracies today have been
autocracies throughout most of history, including times well
before they were influenced by the west.  Remember the Persian 
Wars, and the Persian monarchy fighting against Greek democracy
(depending upon the city state).  Democracy on a large 
scale by and large is something that flowered in Europe before
it did in most other places.  (I would agree that we often
overlook the fact that it wasn't strictly Eurpopean. Some of
the American Indian tribes were democratic, a fact that some
of our Founders (like Jefferson) knew well.)

> 
> I like Western Culture too.  But you claim to be arguing that  
Western
> culture is ``superior'' to other cultures.  Comparable lists of
> cultural highlights can be compiled for many cultures (especially  
if
> one makes the categories as broad as Western Culture).  Why are the
> achievements of Western Culture ``better''?  More importantly, what  
does 
> ``better'' mean?

In music, at least, Western musicians (from Bach to Stravinsky)
were able to take advantage of the musical notation scheme to
produce very complex works, that thus could work on more levels
than music written by someone who did not have such a system.
The musical notation used in Europe also facilitated the evolution
and growth of music in the West, because one generation of 
musicians could easily study those who came before.

Does this make Western music better?  I'd argue yes, overall.
However, I don't think this says anything about the culture
producing better musicians, overall. What it does say is that
the musicians produced in the West had better tools to work with
and thus could produce better music as a result. 


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: soc.history