The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
But I think that Arab culture was where it was because of it's economic situation, being the gateway between the west and east and building a trading empire around that, and that economic growth made it open to ideas from around the world, making them the most "advanced" culture for a long while.
Now, the Arab economy has been in stagnation, and as a result the culture stagnated. But when you look at cases such as the UAE, with a boisterous capital city in Dubai and a booming economy fueled by oil, they are increasingly looking forward and becoming a "modern" culture, dropping the vestiges of their backwards former ways. They have no qualms working with western companies and bringing in western professionals, such as with the Burj Dubai, what will be the tallest building in the world, being designed by Chicago's SOM (my personal dream job). The reverse can be seen in the United States, where the most economically depressed regions are becoming more culturally backward, and we see evangelism and close-mindedness spreading at an alarming pace.
The rest of the Arab world could quite easily follow the pattern of the UAE and other oil-rich nations like Azerbaijan and invest their oil money into their economies and build for the future when the oil money is gone, but until they do that fundamentalism and extremism will still dominate the Arab world.
Sure, they want the wealth they see in Singapore, but when it comes to human rights, they're far away from Western standards~ http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=uae
Oh, I never meant to imply that the UAE is all of a sudden a fabulously tolerant nation. Cultural takes time, at least 50 years for major mindsets to change, and it's far from that. However, it's definitely on the path, and the things that can change relatively quickly, such as foreign policy attitudes and such, are moving in the right direction.
Even nations considered farther along the path of modernization have severe human rights violations along these same lines, such as China and India. I know for a fact that the Indian workers brought to Dubai would have faced the same or worse mistreatment in their home country. But these nations are also still extremely far from establishing the quality of life we have in the first-world nations, and once those standards are established, everything else will follow.
"BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- A Lebanese television anchor's comments and laughter regarding the assassination of Lebanese anti-Syrian parliamentarian Walid Eido have caused a furor and resulted in her firing.
"So, why did it take them so long to kill him?" the anchor asked a colleague on live television Wednesday, the same day as Eido's death. She begins laughing, and the colleague joins in. "
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
Some people believe that the culture of America is superior to that of others. This is quite an interesting view, because I have always been of the opinion that a culture can not be better or worse than another culture, they can only be different.
That's quite an interesting view, because your opinion is horribly wrong.
When it comes to life, there is always something better than something else. Only in mathematics and sciences can one thing not be better or worse than another.
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
Culture certainly affects prosperity, but I doubt it's the only thing that's made the west so rich; I'd guess that geography and good fortune have important roles too, maybe greater roles than culture. Further, I think our culture is equally affected by our wealth, rather than just vice versa, so if people in Africa wanted to implement our culture so they get richer they'd sort of be putting the cart in front of the horse.
Corlis on
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
The level of wealth in a nation is most certainly not indicative of any sort of cultural superiority. During the middle decades of 20th century, the white segment of the population in South Africa were incredibly wealthy compared to the black segment of the population. Does that mean the whites were culturally superior to the poor blacks?
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Somehow I think this is what leads people to think they're really better. It is human nature to justify one's place in the world. "The US isn't so wealthy because we consume so much, we're so wealthy because our culture rocks on toast." It's stupid and it's short-sighted, but that's mankind for you.
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
Very good point! "Culture" is a vague enough concept it can be used to give meaning to pretty much anything- you're not poor, just not materialistic. You're not vapid and shallow, you're just "enjoying life", you're not lazy, you're just contemplative...
Culture certainly affects prosperity
You have it backwards- prosperity affects culture. There seems to be a historical correlation between "liberal values" (in the classical sense; not the modern American buzzword sense) and good times. When Europe was tearing itself apart only a few centuries ago due to religion, I'm sure there were Muslims in comparatively tolerant Baghdad sitting around, talking about this very thing.
If the US hit a depression, or suffered serious defeat in war, was occupied or ravaged by foreign invasion, hit by meteors, all our puppies exploded, etc, you'd see the darker undercurrents of "American Culture" take precedent over the nicer ones.
But, as someone who considers culture to be a relatively minor factor, I'd argue that you'd really be seeing the darker undercurrents of human nature becoming more prevalent. The treatment of women in religious fanatic happy Europe in its more disorderly periods was terrible- easily as bad as anything that happens in the Islamic world. You can argue that western culture has changed since then and you'd be correct, but honestly? Culture is always changing. It's constantly fractured into hundreds of subcultures, constantly in flux, divided along class, race, individual needs and desires- can you really tell me than a bisexual web blogger in Seattle with an interest in BDSM is really part of the same culture as a conservative Christian creationist museum curator with an interest in stamp collecting in Kansas? They are, but what does that mean? Does it mean anything? Or that 1922 America and 1932 America had the same culture? A mere decade and you see huge differences. But in every case I think you could track the "root causes" back to some universal human principle- greed, fear, love, power, dominance, influence of violent video games...
Culture is a kind of summation of what people do, and people do things for the same reasons everywhere. Only the trappings change.
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
The level of wealth in a nation is most certainly not indicative of any sort of cultural superiority.
My point is that people are generally more impressed by wealthier and more powerful civilizations.
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
The level of wealth in a nation is most certainly not indicative of any sort of cultural superiority.
My point is that people are generally more impressed by wealthier and more powerful civilizations.
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
The level of wealth in a nation is most certainly not indicative of any sort of cultural superiority.
My point is that people are generally more impressed by wealthier and more powerful civilizations.
Both wealth and power are really hard to determine. For example, when judging the wealth, would a wealthy nation with less poor people be better or would a wealthy nation with a bunch of wealthy people but a relatively large underclass be better?
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
The level of wealth in a nation is most certainly not indicative of any sort of cultural superiority.
My point is that people are generally more impressed by wealthier and more powerful civilizations.
Only dumb people.
Pfffft. Be a little more condescendingly middleclass you hack.
Better yet, pick up some "world music" and fair trade coffee the next time you are at the store buying patchouli.
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
The level of wealth in a nation is most certainly not indicative of any sort of cultural superiority.
My point is that people are generally more impressed by wealthier and more powerful civilizations.
Both wealth and power are really hard to determine. For example, when judging the wealth, would a wealthy nation with less poor people be better or would a wealthy nation with a bunch of wealthy people but a relatively large underclass be better?
I don't know. Why don't you go to India, pick up a village farmer, fly him to the U.S. and ask him.
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
The level of wealth in a nation is most certainly not indicative of any sort of cultural superiority.
My point is that people are generally more impressed by wealthier and more powerful civilizations.
Both wealth and power are really hard to determine. For example, when judging the wealth, would a wealthy nation with less poor people be better or would a wealthy nation with a bunch of wealthy people but a relatively large underclass be better?
I don't know. Why don't you go to India, pick up a village farmer, fly him to the U.S. and ask him.
What if I accidentally pick up one of the wealthy people that get extremely rich using the poor? I think he would say his system was better.
I'd rather thought we were talking about cultures and civilizations, not individuals.
Slice it up how you like and fret about equity but western cultures and western civilization in general, and the people within that catagory, are generally richer than almost every other at this moment.
Has anyone mentioned that we are better because we have more money?
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
The level of wealth in a nation is most certainly not indicative of any sort of cultural superiority.
My point is that people are generally more impressed by wealthier and more powerful civilizations.
Both wealth and power are really hard to determine. For example, when judging the wealth, would a wealthy nation with less poor people be better or would a wealthy nation with a bunch of wealthy people but a relatively large underclass be better?
I don't know. Why don't you go to India, pick up a village farmer, fly him to the U.S. and ask him.
What if I accidentally pick up one of the wealthy people that get extremely rich using the poor? I think he would say his system was better.
I would like to point out, that as someone who has personally met poor-as-shit Indian farmers and the guys getting rich off of him, and that's completely right. But as a whole, their culture is still closer to "human nature" than our own because the country as a whole is still generally poorer. They believe very much in a system where if you're poor, the rich have every right to exploit you and fuck you over with the system because they have the power. If they can do it, they are completely justified. However, that attitude carries itself over into an almost complete disregard for the government and any concept of "fairness." A major portion of the Indian economy is entirely conducted in black money, completely untaxed.
In this case, it appears the economic structure, which has been around since the British occupation, has spawned the Indian culture as it is now. However, the everyday man is becoming increasingly capable of obtaining an education, due to international demand for cheap, skilled, technical labor. As the country moves in that direction, the percentage of the market composed of black money is slowly becoming "white money" because of the amount of business being dealt with international corporations, and it becomes harder to exploit the common man as the common man becomes more educated. New government policies are becoming more egalitarian.
It's not like they're all about freedom and populism, but they're moving their culture is becoming more western, and it's quite clear that the economic progress is the main cause of that.
Edit: So what I'm saying is that "wealthier" cultures, as in cultures in which the average man is richer than other average men in other cultures, are indeed better, because there is less room for exploitation, either by the government or by the ultra-rich.
That's true Ekamil. But it's not as simple as that. A certain amount of money present within a culture does not necessarily make it 'better'. I mean, some cultures get rich by exploiting others (various slave-owning cultures in the past, for example).
Basically, when I say that it's not as simple as rich countries (which we haven't determined are rich because of their culture by the way) have better cultures than others, I'm not saying being poor is fun (in fact, I was poor, albeit in the rich UK, for most of my life).
The people are certainly better off. Or at least everyone who doesn't just love soul crushing poverty.
If how well off the people are is the determinant to how good a culture is, then yes, western culture is better than most of the rest. I would even concur with that statement, to a degree, except that I'd amend it to state that the culture with the richer people is the better culture, assuming everything else remains static. Ethical conduct with its neighbour states, the distribution of money, and happiness are also massive determinants of a better culture. I'd say that a poor culture that was nice to its neighbours is better than a culture that fuelled it's income with a brisk slave trade coming from its nearby countries, because the latter country isn't accumulating its money by itself but by stealing from neighbours, and such a culture won't work if everybody adopts it. I'd also say that a culture gives 98% of its money to 0.1% of its population isn't better than a poorer country that distributes its money somewhat evenly. With this in mind it isn't so clear whether our culture is better than Arabian or African culture.
@Professor Phobos: It is as you say, though I should point out that I clarified my position further in my post to state that culture is affected by money as well.
Corlis on
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
That's true Ekamil. But it's not as simple as that. A certain amount of money present within a culture does not necessarily make it 'better'. I mean, some cultures get rich by exploiting others (various slave-owning cultures in the past, for example).
Basically, when I say that it's not as simple as rich countries (which we haven't determined are rich because of their culture by the way) have better cultures than others, I'm not saying being poor is fun (in fact, I was poor, albeit in the rich UK, for most of my life).
If your measure of wealth is GDP, you're going to get some screwy rankings, because it doesn't say anything about wealth distribution. Introduce other metrics and you get a clearer picture.
hmmm. While I'd rather paint myself blue and run naked down Coro Drive than live in, say, Saudi Arabia, there's something fairly icky about the rah-rah attitudes in here. Oh, and there's no such thing as 'western' culture. You're just setting up anyone from Europe, North America or AUs/NZ against the middle east, as if South America, Africa, East Asia, the Pacific, and Eastern Europe didn't even exist. Way to not cleverly disguise another lets-bash-the-arab-world thread :?
How many of these threads do we need to have before people start to accept the fact that moral relativism is not an actual moral code but, rather, it is a lens through which we can better understand the causes and effects of events occuring throughout the world?
How many of these threads do we need to have before people start to accept the fact that moral relativism is not an actual moral code but, rather, it is a lens through which we can better understand the causes and effects of events occuring throughout the world?
I'm pretty sure there's more than one notion of moral relativism. As I understand it, you're talking about the one used in sociology.
How many of these threads do we need to have before people start to accept the fact that moral relativism is not an actual moral code but, rather, it is a lens through which we can better understand the causes and effects of events occuring throughout the world?
I'm pretty sure there's more than one notion of moral relativism. As I understand it, you're talking about the one used in sociology.
Also known as 'the only correct application of moral relativism.'
Oh, and there's no such thing as 'western' culture. You're just setting up anyone from Europe, North America or AUs/NZ against the middle east, as if South America, Africa, East Asia, the Pacific, and Eastern Europe didn't even exist. Way to not cleverly disguise another lets-bash-the-arab-world thread :?
There's a whole spectrum of degrees of culture I think. You can look at it in a micro-scale and split things up by things like countries, or states/provinces, or counties, or cities, or urban divisions, or whatever. You could also look at it in a macro scale and look at countries, or continents, or hemispheres, or the world as a whole. There is something like a shared aspects of culture between Europe, N America and Australia/N Zealand, but then each of those countries also has their own aspects of culture as well that differentiate them from the rest.
Corlis on
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
How many of these threads do we need to have before people start to accept the fact that moral relativism is not an actual moral code but, rather, it is a lens through which we can better understand the causes and effects of events occuring throughout the world?
I'm pretty sure there's more than one notion of moral relativism. As I understand it, you're talking about the one used in sociology.
Also known as 'the only correct application of moral relativism.'
Moral relativism as, say, Salvation122 defines it is indeed bullshit, but denying the concept as described above just prevents you from being able to properly think about why other people do the wacky things they do. Not to mention why you yourself do.
Some people believe that the culture of America is superior to that of others. This is quite an interesting view, because I have always been of the opinion that a culture can not be better or worse than another culture, they can only be different.
How does one measure the superiority of a culture as opposed to another, without resorting to presumptions and/or racism?
Can one even say that a culture is good or bad? I have learned that culture is how a society expresses itself, this goes from music, to art, to traditions, to language to religion et cetera.
Nothing means anything outside of a context. So if we want to compare cultures, which is itself difficult, we can compare them on their abilities to do things.
Take two cultures and say that we shall compare them on the ability of persons within that culture to feed their selves. Then we look at the culture and see how they compare.
hmmm. While I'd rather paint myself blue and run naked down Coro Drive than live in, say, Saudi Arabia, there's something fairly icky about the rah-rah attitudes in here. Oh, and there's no such thing as 'western' culture. You're just setting up anyone from Europe, North America or AUs/NZ against the middle east, as if South America, Africa, East Asia, the Pacific, and Eastern Europe didn't even exist. Way to not cleverly disguise another lets-bash-the-arab-world thread :?
Well, there's nothing fashionable about ragging on South American culture. Unless they're trying to sneak past the borders to destroy the superior American culture, with all their Spanish.
Oh, and there's no such thing as 'western' culture. You're just setting up anyone from Europe, North America or AUs/NZ against the middle east, as if South America, Africa, East Asia, the Pacific, and Eastern Europe didn't even exist. Way to not cleverly disguise another lets-bash-the-arab-world thread :?
There's a whole spectrum of degrees of culture I think. You can look at it in a micro-scale and split things up by things like countries, or states/provinces, or counties, or cities, or urban divisions, or whatever. You could also look at it in a macro scale and look at countries, or continents, or hemispheres, or the world as a whole. There is something like a shared aspects of culture between Europe, N America and Australia/N Zealand, but then each of those countries also has their own aspects of culture as well that differentiate them from the rest.
That's not happening in here, though. Thread lacks nuance. And, you know, Anthropology 101...
Actually, since I brought up Saudi Arabia, I wasn't thinking of it in relation to it being Moslem, and I'm not American and definitely not a devotee of the 'war on terror'.
I was thinking about the wealth differential between the guest workers and the Saudis, and the attitude of people I've known from Saudi and Dubai who are obsessed with conspicuous consumption.
And I mentioned them in reference to Shinto's idea that rich=better, not as 'bad' cultures in comparison to godblesspeoplewhospeakEnglish.
you're hardly the only person in this thread I was talking about, posh. Hell, I'm not even sure I was referencing anything you wrote specifically so much as bitching about a specific attitude. Excellent self-centredness there, though.
Posts
Oh, I never meant to imply that the UAE is all of a sudden a fabulously tolerant nation. Cultural takes time, at least 50 years for major mindsets to change, and it's far from that. However, it's definitely on the path, and the things that can change relatively quickly, such as foreign policy attitudes and such, are moving in the right direction.
Even nations considered farther along the path of modernization have severe human rights violations along these same lines, such as China and India. I know for a fact that the Indian workers brought to Dubai would have faced the same or worse mistreatment in their home country. But these nations are also still extremely far from establishing the quality of life we have in the first-world nations, and once those standards are established, everything else will follow.
Sorry. But you said it.
Heh, that just reminded me of Fatfatism. Damn you wikipedia for removing that entry!
And oh noes, an Arab anchor was being a retard. I'm glad your country's airwaves are full of level headed and brilliant minds.
Because if we were living in subsistence poverty and wracked by disease and the Africans had per capita incomes close to 50k per year, I don't think we would be discussing how awesome western civilization is or isn't.
Well, we might be talking up how we had non-materialistic values that made us better than them, but it would just be a way of looking ourselves in the mirror and not feeling ashamed of living in shit.
That's quite an interesting view, because your opinion is horribly wrong.
When it comes to life, there is always something better than something else. Only in mathematics and sciences can one thing not be better or worse than another.
Consider yourself limed, sweetness.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
The level of wealth in a nation is most certainly not indicative of any sort of cultural superiority. During the middle decades of 20th century, the white segment of the population in South Africa were incredibly wealthy compared to the black segment of the population. Does that mean the whites were culturally superior to the poor blacks?
Somehow I think this is what leads people to think they're really better. It is human nature to justify one's place in the world. "The US isn't so wealthy because we consume so much, we're so wealthy because our culture rocks on toast." It's stupid and it's short-sighted, but that's mankind for you.
Very good point! "Culture" is a vague enough concept it can be used to give meaning to pretty much anything- you're not poor, just not materialistic. You're not vapid and shallow, you're just "enjoying life", you're not lazy, you're just contemplative...
You have it backwards- prosperity affects culture. There seems to be a historical correlation between "liberal values" (in the classical sense; not the modern American buzzword sense) and good times. When Europe was tearing itself apart only a few centuries ago due to religion, I'm sure there were Muslims in comparatively tolerant Baghdad sitting around, talking about this very thing.
If the US hit a depression, or suffered serious defeat in war, was occupied or ravaged by foreign invasion, hit by meteors, all our puppies exploded, etc, you'd see the darker undercurrents of "American Culture" take precedent over the nicer ones.
But, as someone who considers culture to be a relatively minor factor, I'd argue that you'd really be seeing the darker undercurrents of human nature becoming more prevalent. The treatment of women in religious fanatic happy Europe in its more disorderly periods was terrible- easily as bad as anything that happens in the Islamic world. You can argue that western culture has changed since then and you'd be correct, but honestly? Culture is always changing. It's constantly fractured into hundreds of subcultures, constantly in flux, divided along class, race, individual needs and desires- can you really tell me than a bisexual web blogger in Seattle with an interest in BDSM is really part of the same culture as a conservative Christian creationist museum curator with an interest in stamp collecting in Kansas? They are, but what does that mean? Does it mean anything? Or that 1922 America and 1932 America had the same culture? A mere decade and you see huge differences. But in every case I think you could track the "root causes" back to some universal human principle- greed, fear, love, power, dominance, influence of violent video games...
Culture is a kind of summation of what people do, and people do things for the same reasons everywhere. Only the trappings change.
My point is that people are generally more impressed by wealthier and more powerful civilizations.
Only dumb people.
Japanese pirates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wokou
Unfortunately wiki has nothing on Japanese zombies....
Pfffft. Be a little more condescendingly middleclass you hack.
Better yet, pick up some "world music" and fair trade coffee the next time you are at the store buying patchouli.
I don't know. Why don't you go to India, pick up a village farmer, fly him to the U.S. and ask him.
But Saudi Arabia or Dubai are pretty rich, right? Chelsea is richer than Walthamstow? and they can all kiss my arse.
What if I accidentally pick up one of the wealthy people that get extremely rich using the poor? I think he would say his system was better.
Slice it up how you like and fret about equity but western cultures and western civilization in general, and the people within that catagory, are generally richer than almost every other at this moment.
A simple question:
How many "bad things" can a culture encompass before it becomes a "bad culture"?
A second question:
Are some "bad things" worse than others?
I would like to point out, that as someone who has personally met poor-as-shit Indian farmers and the guys getting rich off of him, and that's completely right. But as a whole, their culture is still closer to "human nature" than our own because the country as a whole is still generally poorer. They believe very much in a system where if you're poor, the rich have every right to exploit you and fuck you over with the system because they have the power. If they can do it, they are completely justified. However, that attitude carries itself over into an almost complete disregard for the government and any concept of "fairness." A major portion of the Indian economy is entirely conducted in black money, completely untaxed.
In this case, it appears the economic structure, which has been around since the British occupation, has spawned the Indian culture as it is now. However, the everyday man is becoming increasingly capable of obtaining an education, due to international demand for cheap, skilled, technical labor. As the country moves in that direction, the percentage of the market composed of black money is slowly becoming "white money" because of the amount of business being dealt with international corporations, and it becomes harder to exploit the common man as the common man becomes more educated. New government policies are becoming more egalitarian.
It's not like they're all about freedom and populism, but they're moving their culture is becoming more western, and it's quite clear that the economic progress is the main cause of that.
Edit: So what I'm saying is that "wealthier" cultures, as in cultures in which the average man is richer than other average men in other cultures, are indeed better, because there is less room for exploitation, either by the government or by the ultra-rich.
No, you implied that wealthy cultures are better.
Basically, when I say that it's not as simple as rich countries (which we haven't determined are rich because of their culture by the way) have better cultures than others, I'm not saying being poor is fun (in fact, I was poor, albeit in the rich UK, for most of my life).
@Professor Phobos: It is as you say, though I should point out that I clarified my position further in my post to state that culture is affected by money as well.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
If your measure of wealth is GDP, you're going to get some screwy rankings, because it doesn't say anything about wealth distribution. Introduce other metrics and you get a clearer picture.
hmmm. While I'd rather paint myself blue and run naked down Coro Drive than live in, say, Saudi Arabia, there's something fairly icky about the rah-rah attitudes in here. Oh, and there's no such thing as 'western' culture. You're just setting up anyone from Europe, North America or AUs/NZ against the middle east, as if South America, Africa, East Asia, the Pacific, and Eastern Europe didn't even exist. Way to not cleverly disguise another lets-bash-the-arab-world thread :?
I'm pretty sure there's more than one notion of moral relativism. As I understand it, you're talking about the one used in sociology.
Also known as 'the only correct application of moral relativism.'
What.
Are you fucking insane?
Culture happens regardless of wealth. Wealth just lets you make shinier shit.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Moral relativism as, say, Salvation122 defines it is indeed bullshit, but denying the concept as described above just prevents you from being able to properly think about why other people do the wacky things they do. Not to mention why you yourself do.
Nothing means anything outside of a context. So if we want to compare cultures, which is itself difficult, we can compare them on their abilities to do things.
Take two cultures and say that we shall compare them on the ability of persons within that culture to feed their selves. Then we look at the culture and see how they compare.
Well, there's nothing fashionable about ragging on South American culture. Unless they're trying to sneak past the borders to destroy the superior American culture, with all their Spanish.
I was thinking about the wealth differential between the guest workers and the Saudis, and the attitude of people I've known from Saudi and Dubai who are obsessed with conspicuous consumption.
And I mentioned them in reference to Shinto's idea that rich=better, not as 'bad' cultures in comparison to godblesspeoplewhospeakEnglish.
Still, excellent smuggery there.
The thing with America is that it's so common that it's not as conspicuous.
I mean, fuck.
Star Bucks.