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.
Of course jazz is about a lot more than theory. That doesn't mean that you don't need to understand at least basic theory to truly appreciate jazz after, say, 1955. Someone who doesn't understand theory would be able to say about as much about John Coltrane as a poet might be able to say about Jackson Pollock--they might be able to pick up on some basic things, but they'll be missing out on a lot. I know plenty of people who listen to plenty of good music but couldn't tell the difference between Michael Brecker and John Coltrane. That's because even though there's a whole lot of difference there, it's pretty much all theoretical--stylistically they're pretty similar.
He died today didn't he? Possibly over the weekend. Very talented person will be missed.
Of course jazz is about a lot more than theory. That doesn't mean that you don't need to understand at least basic theory to truly appreciate jazz after, say, 1955. Someone who doesn't understand theory would be able to say about as much about John Coltrane as a poet might be able to say about Jackson Pollock--they might be able to pick up on some basic things, but they'll be missing out on a lot. I know plenty of people who listen to plenty of good music but couldn't tell the difference between Michael Brecker and John Coltrane. That's because even though there's a whole lot of difference there, it's pretty much all theoretical--stylistically they're pretty similar.
He died today didn't he? Possibly over the weekend. Very talented person will be missed.
He died in January. Yeah, it was really sad, especially since it's possible he could have lived had he found a matching stem cell donor.
I think one could narrow down the debate to the perceived "individualism" of western cultures versus the "collectivism" of pretty much everywhere else from Mexico to India to Japan. Never mind that Japan could be considered the very definition of individuality compared to India. I've seen nationalist and ignorant TA's tout individualism as the be all end all reason for both America's difference from the rest of the world, as well as its "superiority". One even went so far as to cite it as the reason why the country thumbs its nose at multilateral conventions and treaties and the Iraq war, sorry I mean "War on Terror" :roll:
Are you saying that India is collectivist? Because I can say from personal experience that it is extremely individualist, more than any other country I can think of.
India is sickeningly collectivist, at least the dominant culture of the current generation. the vast majority of marriages are arranged, inter-caste marriages lead to disownment by families for that reason alone, discussion of homosexuality leads to violent mass protests, it's considered extremely odd/shameful if someone majors in a field other than engineering or medicine, independent art outside of either classical (traditional) or commercial context isn't generally respected by society at large, and various other shit.
Most of the shit you said has nothing to do with collectivism and sounds like something somebody would get from a book on Indian stereotypes.
There are over 200 languages spoken in India and over 20 official languages. There are also several major religions in India. This generally does not lead to a collectivist culture.
No it comes from being Indian and being extensively exposed to Indian society on the inside.
Yes, the country is ethnically diverse and there are differences in things like regional art, cuisine, etc. This doesn't mean they aren't homogenous on a very fundamental level though.
Yeah, I'm Indian, too, and you are completely misunderstanding collectivism. What you said is all completely true, but it's all about pushing the prosperity of every individual in the family as much as possible, even if it is at the expense of other families. How is it collectivist to have scrawny helper children from other families that are abused regularly in your house? Marriages are arranged to preserve and push position in society, and the majoring in medicine/engineering is to once again push that prosperity, though you can do something else as long as you make money with it (I know firsthand about this, being the only person in my family who isn't doing medicine/engineering). Everything is about constantly pushing and preserving your own and your family's position in society. If you're not in that family, we don't care.
Of course jazz is about a lot more than theory. That doesn't mean that you don't need to understand at least basic theory to truly appreciate jazz after, say, 1955. Someone who doesn't understand theory would be able to say about as much about John Coltrane as a poet might be able to say about Jackson Pollock--they might be able to pick up on some basic things, but they'll be missing out on a lot. I know plenty of people who listen to plenty of good music but couldn't tell the difference between Michael Brecker and John Coltrane. That's because even though there's a whole lot of difference there, it's pretty much all theoretical--stylistically they're pretty similar.
He died today didn't he? Possibly over the weekend. Very talented person will be missed.
He died in January. Yeah, it was really sad, especially since it's possible he could have lived had he found a matching stem cell donor.
They were doing an npr piece on him this morning and it was done in a way where it sounded like he just died. Curious. I don't know much about him honestly by the radio short definately piqued my interest.
Of course jazz is about a lot more than theory. That doesn't mean that you don't need to understand at least basic theory to truly appreciate jazz after, say, 1955. Someone who doesn't understand theory would be able to say about as much about John Coltrane as a poet might be able to say about Jackson Pollock--they might be able to pick up on some basic things, but they'll be missing out on a lot. I know plenty of people who listen to plenty of good music but couldn't tell the difference between Michael Brecker and John Coltrane. That's because even though there's a whole lot of difference there, it's pretty much all theoretical--stylistically they're pretty similar.
He died today didn't he? Possibly over the weekend. Very talented person will be missed.
He died in January. Yeah, it was really sad, especially since it's possible he could have lived had he found a matching stem cell donor.
They were doing an npr piece on him this morning and it was done in a way where it sounded like he just died. Curious. I don't know much about him honestly by the radio short definately piqued my interest.
Yeah, he was really amazing. The only album I own that includes him is The Birthday Concert by Jaco Pastorius, which is one of the most amazing displays of improvised musicianship I have ever heard. I've been kind of trying to find more of his work, but I don't know where to start (I don't even know where to find a list of his discography, let alone which of his albums are considered his best). His wikipedia says he final studio album, Pilgrammage, which was posthumously released in May, is supposed to be good, although apparently he was pretty much dying when they were recording it. I might try to track that down.
Valuing human life is superior to not valuing human life.
This is a ridiculously simplistic statement. First you have to quantify the value you place on human life, then determine how that can be used to make moral judgements. Is it better to kill one person to save ten? Or is it better to let the ten die so you don't have to take the life of the one?
But, by deciding to value the ten over the one, you have valued human life. Without value, you could not assign relative value.[/Devil's advocate]
His statement is true but of no practical value as I don't know of any culture that doesn't value human life on some level.
Valuing human life is superior to not valuing human life.
This is a ridiculously simplistic statement. First you have to quantify the value you place on human life, then determine how that can be used to make moral judgements. Is it better to kill one person to save ten? Or is it better to let the ten die so you don't have to take the life of the one?
But, by deciding to value the ten over the one, you have valued human life. Without value, you could not assign relative value.[/Devil's advocate]
His statement is true but of no practical value as I don't know of any culture that doesn't value human life on some level.
Tautology++
That's sort of what I meant. He's made a true, but meaningless statement.
Valuing human life is superior to not valuing human life.
This is a ridiculously simplistic statement. First you have to quantify the value you place on human life, then determine how that can be used to make moral judgements. Is it better to kill one person to save ten? Or is it better to let the ten die so you don't have to take the life of the one?
But, by deciding to value the ten over the one, you have valued human life. Without value, you could not assign relative value.[/Devil's advocate]
His statement is true but of no practical value as I don't know of any culture that doesn't value human life on some level.
Tautology++
That's sort of what I meant. He's made a true, but meaningless statement.
Then please make it more obvious, I only have a limited amount of smug condecension to go around. :P
This is why I believe even trying to debate cultural 'superiority' is a waste of time. Superiority is an abstract term, and trying to quantify it with concrete statistics is impossible. What makes a culture superior? Is it the amount of art that it puts out? The amount of land in conquers? Or is it the general happiness of it's citizens? You can argue about it forever.
I do believe that some cultures are more advanced than others. For example, take the eventual European take-over of the Americas. Saying that the Europeans were superior to the native Americans because they conquered them will get you into some trouble. I believe that the Europeans conquered the Americas because, for a variety of reasons, their culture was more advanced than that of the Americas, and I don't think anyone will argue with me about that.
believe that the Europeans conquered the Americas because, for a variety of reasons, their culture was more advanced than that of the Americas, and I don't think anyone will argue with me about that.
I will. I'd have said Europeans were able to colonize the Americas because they carried diseases and guns. Are diseases and gunpowder the benchmarks of culture? What is the difference between calling a civilization 'more advanced' and calling it 'superior'? In the end, you're saying its better.
Guys wouldn't the best culture be the culture that the most people want to be in? Ignorning the fact that it would be pretty much be ultradifficult to measure such a thing.
Guys wouldn't the best culture be the culture that the most people want to be in? Ignorning the fact that it would be pretty much be ultradifficult to measure such a thing.
no, because it's possible and maybe even easy to modify and shape what a person desires. and people aren't always logical about how they decide what they want.
besides, china would win based on population alone.
believe that the Europeans conquered the Americas because, for a variety of reasons, their culture was more advanced than that of the Americas, and I don't think anyone will argue with me about that.
I will. I'd have said Europeans were able to colonize the Americas because they carried diseases and guns. Are diseases and gunpowder the benchmarks of culture? What is the difference between calling a civilization 'more advanced' and calling it 'superior'? In the end, you're saying its better.
somehow i dont think most people equate "most destructive power" to "better".
Plato has a nice response to the idea that "stronger is better". He says something along the lines of, well, isn't a big group of people much stronger than an invididual person? And then, isn't a big group of people who are able to co-operate and get along with each other stronger than a group which is rambunctious and violent and unable to agree to anything?
I guess I'd then add, as the next stage to that argument, that the more people, including many different and potentially hostile people, your system is able to hold together into a system of co-operation, the stronger it will be.
Well for weapons, yes they do. More destructive power is better.
iirc, we are comparing cultures, not weapons.
are you saying that cultures with better weapons are better cultures? im guessing that's not what you're saying but then again, there sure are some weird people out there.
believe that the Europeans conquered the Americas because, for a variety of reasons, their culture was more advanced than that of the Americas, and I don't think anyone will argue with me about that.
I will. I'd have said Europeans were able to colonize the Americas because they carried diseases and guns. Are diseases and gunpowder the benchmarks of culture? What is the difference between calling a civilization 'more advanced' and calling it 'superior'? In the end, you're saying its better.
There's a huge difference between calling a culture advanced and calling it superior. I have huge respect for many aspects of Native American culture. Much more, to be honest, than I have for European culture of the time.
The thing is, all cultures tend to evolve in a certain pattern all over the globe. There was a time when the peoples of Europe lived in chiefdoms very similar in organization to Native American societies and they were considered barbarians by the Romans. The Romans were also considered barbarians by the Greeks at one time, and the Greeks considered as such by the people of Crete and the Near East. In the New World, the Aztecs were considered barbarians by the residents of the valley of Mexico when they first arrived.
My point is that given the right set of circumstances, cultures tend to invariably grow from simple hunter gatherers to state-level societies. It is my belief that, given time, the Americas would have reached a point where their society was comparable to that of the western Europe at the time. Thus I can say with confidence that the Europeans were truly more advanced than the Americans. I'm not using the Europeans conquest of the Americas as the basis for saying they were more advanced, I'm saying they conquered the Americas because they were more advanced.
believe that the Europeans conquered the Americas because, for a variety of reasons, their culture was more advanced than that of the Americas, and I don't think anyone will argue with me about that.
I will. I'd have said Europeans were able to colonize the Americas because they carried diseases and guns. Are diseases and gunpowder the benchmarks of culture? What is the difference between calling a civilization 'more advanced' and calling it 'superior'? In the end, you're saying its better.
There's a huge difference between calling a culture advanced and calling it superior. I have huge respect for many aspects of Native American culture. Much more, to be honest, than I have for European culture of the time.
The thing is, all cultures tend to evolve in a certain pattern all over the globe. There was a time when the peoples of Europe lived in chiefdoms very similar in organization to Native American societies and they were considered barbarians by the Romans. The Romans were also considered barbarians by the Greeks at one time, and the Greeks considered as such by the people of Crete and the Near East. In the New World, the Aztecs were considered barbarians by the residents of the valley of Mexico when they first arrived.
My point is that given the right set of circumstances, cultures tend to invariably grow from simple hunter gatherers to state-level societies. It is my belief that, given time, the Americas would have reached a point where their society was comparable to that of the western Europe at the time. Thus I can say with confidence that the Europeans were truly more advanced than the Americans. I'm not using the Europeans conquest of the Americas as the basis for saying they were more advanced, I'm saying they conquered the Americas because they were more advanced.
Firstly, you have a very whiggish conception of history-as-progress that lost all intellectual credibility in the trenches of the first world war, except in some circles like Nazi Germany where it was adopted to serve nationalistic ends, ie social Darwinist justifications for war. (Ironically, it is the Holocaust that now serves as the ultimate example of the hollowness of history-as-progress.) There is no teleological sense to history.
Secondly, you don't state what makes European culture more 'advanced' than Native American societies: you just state that it is, as if its a truism. What was it about European culture (as opposed to technology or diseases) that allowed them to colonize the Americas?
Secondly, you don't state what makes European culture more 'advanced' than Native American societies: you just state that it is, as if its a truism. What was it about European culture (as opposed to technology or diseases) that allowed them to colonize the Americas?
Are you saying that technology and disease aren't part of a culture? Because I would disagree.
Secondly, you don't state what makes European culture more 'advanced' than Native American societies: you just state that it is, as if its a truism. What was it about European culture (as opposed to technology or diseases) that allowed them to colonize the Americas?
Are you saying that technology and disease aren't part of a culture? Because I would disagree.
People can imbue technology with cultural meaning, ie the motor car in America. But technology isn't a product of culture per se. You need to discriminate carefully between society and culture.
Secondly, you don't state what makes European culture more 'advanced' than Native American societies: you just state that it is, as if its a truism. What was it about European culture (as opposed to technology or diseases) that allowed them to colonize the Americas?
Are you saying that technology and disease aren't part of a culture? Because I would disagree.
People can imbue technology with cultural meaning, ie the motor car in America. But technology isn't a product of culture per se. You need to discriminate carefully between society and culture.
This is how it works. As a really simple explanation.
As a culture becomes more advanced, population density and specialized classes increase. Those specialized classes lead to things like career soldiers and scientists, which lead to advances in warfare. As population density increases so does the prevalence of killer bacteria and viruses . . . strains that previously would have died out due to a lack of new hosts stick around for a long time, as in hundreds to thousands of years, or longer in especially crafty ones.
Now those are some of the main reasons why Europe took America relatively easily. So why was Europe so much more advanced then America? First, and most important of all, Europe had access to the basket of crops and domesticated animals that emerged from the fertile crescent - one which was far more advantageous then the ones available in the Americas. South America had pototatoes/yams and Llamas, while North America had maize. The entirety of Europe had wheat, barley, chick peas, peas, flax, and lentils as well as cows, goats, sheeps, pigs, and horses.
Then there was the factor of time. Europeans had been in Europe for much longer then the Americans had been in America, plus the Americas goes from north to south, which hinders the migrations of peoples, crops, and animals . . where as Eur-Asia is west to east, which encourages migration.
I understand your point, that just because we had the guns and the germs that we were more advanced. What you really mean is that we wern't better. A culture is advanced for very specific reasons relating to how complex its society is and how much it has accomplished and advanced.. In those ways Europeans were clearly more advanced then Americans.
I would like to point out that population density has nothing to do with Europeans getting a good disease to wipe out the others. It was really just luck. The Americans gave Europeans a disease, too, but it was just syphilis. One is an annoying STD, the other is deadly and spread through general contact.
If you want to say that Europe colonized the americas because they had better military technology and better crops, then I agree with you absolutely. But I dont draw any connection between those two things and culture. It wasnt Aztec culture that prevented them farming wheat- it was the fact that they had no wheat. Where is the evidence of a more advanced culture?
If you want to say that Europe colonized the americas because they had better military technology and better crops, then I agree with you absolutely. But I dont draw any connection between those two things and culture. It wasnt Aztec culture that prevented them farming wheat- it was the fact that they had no wheat. Where is the evidence of a more advanced culture?
Youre kinda confusing the potential to be advanced with actually being advanced. The Aztecs and Incas had the former, the Europeans had the latter as a result of their superior resources. It is a part of the equation.
edit: and yeah, I'm talking more about their respective civilizations being advanced, not so much their culture.
If you want to say that Europe colonized the americas because they had better military technology and better crops, then I agree with you absolutely. But I dont draw any connection between those two things and culture. It wasnt Aztec culture that prevented them farming wheat- it was the fact that they had no wheat. Where is the evidence of a more advanced culture?
Youre kinda confusing the potential to be advanced with actually being advanced. The Aztecs and Incas had the former, the Europeans had the latter as a result of their superior resources. It is a part of the equation.
edit: and yeah, I'm talking more about their respective civilizations being advanced, not so much their culture.
I think you're confusing having more resources and technology and having a more advanced culture. How was European culture more advanced than Native American? I dont think it was.
I do think, however, that European societies were more powerful than Native American. They were more powerful because of specific technologies like the transatlantic ship and guns, and because of the diseases they carried. Not because they were culturally superior.
Perhaps then advancement and superiority might be different subjects.
Honestly, not too many cultures are going to live hand to mouth, live for half as long and have little time to dedicate to specialization. I don't really think it is especially vain or egocentric or whatever to compare two cultures and say one is more advanced.
Superiority is a bit too vague a term for this debate to mean much. It is pretty much subjective, particularly if you were to exclude things like technology and economics, and focus on culture and not society. It is fundamentally a value judgment, and values vary by culture.
If you want to say that Europe colonized the americas because they had better military technology and better crops, then I agree with you absolutely. But I dont draw any connection between those two things and culture. It wasnt Aztec culture that prevented them farming wheat- it was the fact that they had no wheat. Where is the evidence of a more advanced culture?
Youre kinda confusing the potential to be advanced with actually being advanced. The Aztecs and Incas had the former, the Europeans had the latter as a result of their superior resources. It is a part of the equation.
edit: and yeah, I'm talking more about their respective civilizations being advanced, not so much their culture.
I think you're confusing having more resources and technology and having a more advanced culture. How was European culture more advanced than Native American? I dont think it was.
I do think, however, that European societies were more powerful than Native American. They were mor powerful because of specific technologies like the transatlantic ship and guns, and because of the diseases they carried. Not because they were culturally superior.
I think the problem is that our definitions of culture are very different. To me, the technologies that a people possess, and the structure of their society are a huge part of what I consider culture. What do you mean when you say culture?
To me what made European culture more advanced was that they had more technologies, more organized governments, and more people to contribute. They didn't have these advantages because they were somehow innately better than the native Americans. They were just in the right place at the right time.
For one thing, Europe was connected throughout it's history to a huge amount of other cultures by indirect trade routes. Thus societies in the Far East, Near East, North Africa, and Europe all fed off the technologies invented by others. Europe would not have had guns if it wasn't for their connection with China, for example. They also wouldn't have the equipment, such as stirrups, that made horses so useful if it wasn't for the neighboring peoples of the Asiatic steppe. The other big advantage Europe had was that they had a few thousand years head start over the Aztecs or Incas.
I'm saying that native American society was less advanced that European society because all over the world cultures have grown according to the same basic pattern. There was a time when culture in Europe and the Near East was very comparable to what the Aztecs and Incas were doing at the time they were conquered. Chances are that had the pre-colombians been given more time, they would have created new trade routes and technologies, maybe created a ridable breed of llamas, and eventually ended up much like Europe in the early 1500's.
believe that the Europeans conquered the Americas because, for a variety of reasons, their culture was more advanced than that of the Americas, and I don't think anyone will argue with me about that.
I will. I'd have said Europeans were able to colonize the Americas because they carried diseases and guns. Are diseases and gunpowder the benchmarks of culture? What is the difference between calling a civilization 'more advanced' and calling it 'superior'? In the end, you're saying its better.
There's a huge difference between calling a culture advanced and calling it superior. I have huge respect for many aspects of Native American culture. Much more, to be honest, than I have for European culture of the time.
The thing is, all cultures tend to evolve in a certain pattern all over the globe. There was a time when the peoples of Europe lived in chiefdoms very similar in organization to Native American societies and they were considered barbarians by the Romans. The Romans were also considered barbarians by the Greeks at one time, and the Greeks considered as such by the people of Crete and the Near East. In the New World, the Aztecs were considered barbarians by the residents of the valley of Mexico when they first arrived.
My point is that given the right set of circumstances, cultures tend to invariably grow from simple hunter gatherers to state-level societies. It is my belief that, given time, the Americas would have reached a point where their society was comparable to that of the western Europe at the time. Thus I can say with confidence that the Europeans were truly more advanced than the Americans. I'm not using the Europeans conquest of the Americas as the basis for saying they were more advanced, I'm saying they conquered the Americas because they were more advanced.
Firstly, you have a very whiggish conception of history-as-progress that lost all intellectual credibility in the trenches of the first world war, except in some circles like Nazi Germany where it was adopted to serve nationalistic ends, ie social Darwinist justifications for war. (Ironically, it is the Holocaust that now serves as the ultimate example of the hollowness of history-as-progress.) There is no teleological sense to history.
I strongly disagree. There have been a great many steps backwards in the progress of civilization, but it's very, very hard to argue that the general trend has not been upwards. The Holocaust was a terrible thing, but other terrible things have happened in history, and civilization has always come back eventually to pick up where it left off. After all, look at Germany now. It's one of the most wealthy nations in the world with very high standards of living.
I contend that it is in fact your view of history, a view colored by emotional reactions to the chaos of the early twentieth century, that is becoming outdated.
if we talk about advancement in terms of specialization, complexity of systems and technological development then its pretty open and shut that Western culture was more advanced.
if we talk about advancement in terms of specialization, complexity of systems and technological development then its pretty open and shut that Western culture was more disease-ridden.
I think the problem is that our definitions of culture are very different. To me, the technologies that a people possess, and the structure of their society are a huge part of what I consider culture. What do you mean when you say culture?
Yes I think so. For my definition of culture, I will defer to Clifford Geertz:
"Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun ... I take culture to be those webs."
[Culture is] "a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life"
In other words, culture is about ideas: its about different ways of seeing the world. You can see it at work behind art and literature; but also behind every-day objects, social customs, laws, morals, etiquette, and so on. One specific example: A bead is a physical object that has nothing to do with culture in itself. But the way in which different people see and place value on the bead, thats culture. And from my perspective, no cultures are inherantly superior or more advanced than any other. The way you talk about 'culture' is the way I would talk about 'society'.
As for different ways of viewing history: thats a very interesting discussion I'd be happy to engage you in, but its beyond the scope of this thread.
I would argue that the production of the bead would be part of culture as well.
Yes you're quite right. So, to clarify: a bead is a product of a certain culture, but as an object it exists outside of any one culture. Different people will rate its value in culturally determined ways.
Posts
He died today didn't he? Possibly over the weekend. Very talented person will be missed.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
Yeah, I'm Indian, too, and you are completely misunderstanding collectivism. What you said is all completely true, but it's all about pushing the prosperity of every individual in the family as much as possible, even if it is at the expense of other families. How is it collectivist to have scrawny helper children from other families that are abused regularly in your house? Marriages are arranged to preserve and push position in society, and the majoring in medicine/engineering is to once again push that prosperity, though you can do something else as long as you make money with it (I know firsthand about this, being the only person in my family who isn't doing medicine/engineering). Everything is about constantly pushing and preserving your own and your family's position in society. If you're not in that family, we don't care.
They were doing an npr piece on him this morning and it was done in a way where it sounded like he just died. Curious. I don't know much about him honestly by the radio short definately piqued my interest.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
But, by deciding to value the ten over the one, you have valued human life. Without value, you could not assign relative value.[/Devil's advocate]
His statement is true but of no practical value as I don't know of any culture that doesn't value human life on some level.
Tautology++
That's sort of what I meant. He's made a true, but meaningless statement.
Then please make it more obvious, I only have a limited amount of smug condecension to go around. :P
I do believe that some cultures are more advanced than others. For example, take the eventual European take-over of the Americas. Saying that the Europeans were superior to the native Americans because they conquered them will get you into some trouble. I believe that the Europeans conquered the Americas because, for a variety of reasons, their culture was more advanced than that of the Americas, and I don't think anyone will argue with me about that.
I will. I'd have said Europeans were able to colonize the Americas because they carried diseases and guns. Are diseases and gunpowder the benchmarks of culture? What is the difference between calling a civilization 'more advanced' and calling it 'superior'? In the end, you're saying its better.
no, because it's possible and maybe even easy to modify and shape what a person desires. and people aren't always logical about how they decide what they want.
besides, china would win based on population alone.
somehow i dont think most people equate "most destructive power" to "better".
Selective destructive power is rather nice though.
I guess I'd then add, as the next stage to that argument, that the more people, including many different and potentially hostile people, your system is able to hold together into a system of co-operation, the stronger it will be.
iirc, we are comparing cultures, not weapons.
are you saying that cultures with better weapons are better cultures? im guessing that's not what you're saying but then again, there sure are some weird people out there.
So the microorganisms were better because of their destructive potential in nearly wiping out an entire continent of indigenous people? Hot damn.
There's a huge difference between calling a culture advanced and calling it superior. I have huge respect for many aspects of Native American culture. Much more, to be honest, than I have for European culture of the time.
The thing is, all cultures tend to evolve in a certain pattern all over the globe. There was a time when the peoples of Europe lived in chiefdoms very similar in organization to Native American societies and they were considered barbarians by the Romans. The Romans were also considered barbarians by the Greeks at one time, and the Greeks considered as such by the people of Crete and the Near East. In the New World, the Aztecs were considered barbarians by the residents of the valley of Mexico when they first arrived.
My point is that given the right set of circumstances, cultures tend to invariably grow from simple hunter gatherers to state-level societies. It is my belief that, given time, the Americas would have reached a point where their society was comparable to that of the western Europe at the time. Thus I can say with confidence that the Europeans were truly more advanced than the Americans. I'm not using the Europeans conquest of the Americas as the basis for saying they were more advanced, I'm saying they conquered the Americas because they were more advanced.
Firstly, you have a very whiggish conception of history-as-progress that lost all intellectual credibility in the trenches of the first world war, except in some circles like Nazi Germany where it was adopted to serve nationalistic ends, ie social Darwinist justifications for war. (Ironically, it is the Holocaust that now serves as the ultimate example of the hollowness of history-as-progress.) There is no teleological sense to history.
Secondly, you don't state what makes European culture more 'advanced' than Native American societies: you just state that it is, as if its a truism. What was it about European culture (as opposed to technology or diseases) that allowed them to colonize the Americas?
Are you saying that technology and disease aren't part of a culture? Because I would disagree.
People can imbue technology with cultural meaning, ie the motor car in America. But technology isn't a product of culture per se. You need to discriminate carefully between society and culture.
This is how it works. As a really simple explanation.
As a culture becomes more advanced, population density and specialized classes increase. Those specialized classes lead to things like career soldiers and scientists, which lead to advances in warfare. As population density increases so does the prevalence of killer bacteria and viruses . . . strains that previously would have died out due to a lack of new hosts stick around for a long time, as in hundreds to thousands of years, or longer in especially crafty ones.
Now those are some of the main reasons why Europe took America relatively easily. So why was Europe so much more advanced then America? First, and most important of all, Europe had access to the basket of crops and domesticated animals that emerged from the fertile crescent - one which was far more advantageous then the ones available in the Americas. South America had pototatoes/yams and Llamas, while North America had maize. The entirety of Europe had wheat, barley, chick peas, peas, flax, and lentils as well as cows, goats, sheeps, pigs, and horses.
Then there was the factor of time. Europeans had been in Europe for much longer then the Americans had been in America, plus the Americas goes from north to south, which hinders the migrations of peoples, crops, and animals . . where as Eur-Asia is west to east, which encourages migration.
I understand your point, that just because we had the guns and the germs that we were more advanced. What you really mean is that we wern't better. A culture is advanced for very specific reasons relating to how complex its society is and how much it has accomplished and advanced.. In those ways Europeans were clearly more advanced then Americans.
Youre kinda confusing the potential to be advanced with actually being advanced. The Aztecs and Incas had the former, the Europeans had the latter as a result of their superior resources. It is a part of the equation.
edit: and yeah, I'm talking more about their respective civilizations being advanced, not so much their culture.
I think you're confusing having more resources and technology and having a more advanced culture. How was European culture more advanced than Native American? I dont think it was.
I do think, however, that European societies were more powerful than Native American. They were more powerful because of specific technologies like the transatlantic ship and guns, and because of the diseases they carried. Not because they were culturally superior.
Honestly, not too many cultures are going to live hand to mouth, live for half as long and have little time to dedicate to specialization. I don't really think it is especially vain or egocentric or whatever to compare two cultures and say one is more advanced.
Superiority is a bit too vague a term for this debate to mean much. It is pretty much subjective, particularly if you were to exclude things like technology and economics, and focus on culture and not society. It is fundamentally a value judgment, and values vary by culture.
I think the problem is that our definitions of culture are very different. To me, the technologies that a people possess, and the structure of their society are a huge part of what I consider culture. What do you mean when you say culture?
To me what made European culture more advanced was that they had more technologies, more organized governments, and more people to contribute. They didn't have these advantages because they were somehow innately better than the native Americans. They were just in the right place at the right time.
For one thing, Europe was connected throughout it's history to a huge amount of other cultures by indirect trade routes. Thus societies in the Far East, Near East, North Africa, and Europe all fed off the technologies invented by others. Europe would not have had guns if it wasn't for their connection with China, for example. They also wouldn't have the equipment, such as stirrups, that made horses so useful if it wasn't for the neighboring peoples of the Asiatic steppe. The other big advantage Europe had was that they had a few thousand years head start over the Aztecs or Incas.
I'm saying that native American society was less advanced that European society because all over the world cultures have grown according to the same basic pattern. There was a time when culture in Europe and the Near East was very comparable to what the Aztecs and Incas were doing at the time they were conquered. Chances are that had the pre-colombians been given more time, they would have created new trade routes and technologies, maybe created a ridable breed of llamas, and eventually ended up much like Europe in the early 1500's.
I strongly disagree. There have been a great many steps backwards in the progress of civilization, but it's very, very hard to argue that the general trend has not been upwards. The Holocaust was a terrible thing, but other terrible things have happened in history, and civilization has always come back eventually to pick up where it left off. After all, look at Germany now. It's one of the most wealthy nations in the world with very high standards of living.
I contend that it is in fact your view of history, a view colored by emotional reactions to the chaos of the early twentieth century, that is becoming outdated.
https://medium.com/@alascii
https://medium.com/@alascii
Colonialism would probably have hit one way or another, but it would have been, shall we say, more interesting.
It took a hell of a lot of plagues to get the Native populations under control, despite European technology.
We also gave you the corn industry.
Ahahahahhaha
Yes I think so. For my definition of culture, I will defer to Clifford Geertz:
"Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun ... I take culture to be those webs."
[Culture is] "a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life"
In other words, culture is about ideas: its about different ways of seeing the world. You can see it at work behind art and literature; but also behind every-day objects, social customs, laws, morals, etiquette, and so on. One specific example: A bead is a physical object that has nothing to do with culture in itself. But the way in which different people see and place value on the bead, thats culture. And from my perspective, no cultures are inherantly superior or more advanced than any other. The way you talk about 'culture' is the way I would talk about 'society'.
As for different ways of viewing history: thats a very interesting discussion I'd be happy to engage you in, but its beyond the scope of this thread.
Maybe you should use a naturally-occurring object for your example?
Yes you're quite right. So, to clarify: a bead is a product of a certain culture, but as an object it exists outside of any one culture. Different people will rate its value in culturally determined ways.