<HTML>Political systems concern principles and values. You cannot simply isolate politics and ideologies from culture. Political ideologies include values - often the ones that matter the most to a people. Are you trying to claim that anti-Semitism isn't a valuation on a race? Or that when one sells ones time to an employer in exchange for money that that isn't a valuation? Or that when one accepts the divine rule of the Monarch that isn't a valuation?
I am sorry you are pissed off, DP. It was not my intention to offend but rather to point out that it is utter rubbish to consider all cultures equal – which is not to say that a superior culture should be like a tyrant! My point is to highlight that some principles are better than others and a higher culture will hold those principles dear. Now, I know my view that I come from a culture that is superior to the NAZI one could be considered ethnocentric. But, I challenge anyone that thinks so to justify the holocaust. The acceptance that all cultures are equal implies that values are purely arbitrary. Well, I don't subscribe to that. I think there are higher values and I don't think that politics is separated from values. In the UK the National Health service grew out of a different valuation on human dignity. The rights of people changed in post war Britain. They were entitled to health care free at the point of service. If that is not a revaluation of values then what is? Or consider Anti-Slavery laws. These came about as the result of a revaluation of values. Or consider Abortion. This came about as a revaluation of values. Are all these things non-political?
Consider the rise of the Green movement - a movement that values nature highly and wants to reduce the exploitation of the natural world. This movement arose out of concern for the natural world and a different valuation on how animals should be treated. The Green movement developed into a political movement from those concerns. In the UK, politicians felt this concern and started to develop Green policies. Inevitably these were watered down by concerns for the economy and the wealth of the nation but nevertheless a change in the kind of culture the U.K. was took place.
Or consider Germany after WW2. A dramatic shift took place in its value system. The Germany of today is nothing like that of the NAZI era. If NAZI ideology has nothing to do with culture then why are Germany's values so different now? Germany has very strong laws to protect minority groups and the Swastika is an illegal symbol. This is not accidental. It is the result of a dramatic shift of values from anti-Semitism and authoritarianism to liberalism and tolerance of difference. Counterfactually, if NAZI Germany had won WW2 we could easily expect the extermination of many cultures and races. The NAZIs could have done it because their value system was such that it afforded a total disrespect for races and cultures other than their own. And by the way, I do not consider Hitler’s admiration of the British Empire as anything other than an admiration for the success the British Empire had with its greed.
For sure, there are always dangers when one believes one has superior values. The NAZIs are a lesson to that. However, as long as one has consideration for differences in culture it can become clear what the will or desire of another culture is. The thorniest problems lie in the most tribal societies. Globalisation can often endanger their existence. But, one has to take account of their feelings. Do they wish to live in what Developed countries would call poverty? They might actually desire to have access to better quality water, medicines, housing and so on. They might desire Cinemas and restaurants and international travel. These cultures may actually wish to change when they see what is on offer. They might not want all of it but that is for them to choose. Martin Scorcese's film, Kundun, highlights some of these issues. Tibet was about to enter a period of change on its own when the Chinese marched into it. Now Garrett brings up the issue of technological differences, and for sure that is a critical factor. But without greed would the Chinese have invaded Tibet? Rome was similarly motivated by greed. Indeed, it is hard to see how an empire can develop without an insatiable greed for more. The desire for the better life has become so strong in some that they value money and the acquisition of property a great deal more than alleviating the suffering of others, or indeed simply respecting their freedom.
Was Roman culture superior to that of the German tribesmen? Well, I honestly don’t know. I would certainly imagine that the Romans thought so. I certainly think that aspects of Roman culture were better than what the non-Greek speaking Germans had. I imagine that technologically the Romans were more advanced. But I think my culture is superior to that of the Romans and the Germans tribesmen both technologically and in emotional terms. I have had the benefit of excellent health care and excellent education all free at the point of service. In any case, much of what the Romans had in terms of technology and knowledge may have been desirable for the Germans to have. Better technology would have improved the quality of their lives. But if it meant acceptance of the Imperial rule of Rome then I would doubt that the Germans would have wanted it if they valued their independence. But I don’t know enough about History to know the all the pertinent facts. I’ll have to read Tacitus, as Garrett suggests, to get a sense of the times. However, regardless of the History, I don’t believe any of it was because the Romans were Romans. In other words, I don’t think there was some inherited genetic property that the Romans had that led to their technological superiority over the German tribesmen. I also don’t happen to believe that inherited genetic properties led to the NAZIs. But surely what this means is that values are all the more critical, for if it is not genetics then it is surely environment. And so, if we let our values decline or stop trying to better our cultures, if we let ourselves fall into a nihilism or into a resentment or envy of other cultures then we can lose our sense of progress and lose our way. In this sense, it is important to balance realism and idealism. One must both identify the problem and have a good solution.
As for organisation and technology- are these things really separate from culture? Well, I don’t happen to think so. Democracy, in principle, reflects a peoples’ desire for tolerance of difference and organises the rule of law to protect those differences whilst upholding all the values. Also, a people at war will often develop new weapons and new strategies via investment into knowledge generating subjects. Is that unusual? No. A culture only survives if its values survive. Consider, if the Allies had lost WW2. Our values would have been inherited from the NAZIs. Europe would have been a Germania, but not that of Tacitus, but rather that of Hitler.
But I do share Garrett’s concern for tribal societies. The impression I get even to this day is that they are bullied. But if they are bullied it is by people of low character and compromised values. People who have no respect. People that spin and lie. But that is just a sign that we have a long way to go. On the other hand, we should not be so cavalier with our opinions that we assume tribal societies wish to remain tribal. They may desire technological advancement. Either way without valuing this issue high on the agenda and forcing strong political concern it is unlikely that people who would disrespect tribal societies and their wishes will stop.
I could say a lot more about this but this is not the forum for such a discussion. So, I will take my leave of this subject in the hope that I have resolved any offense I have caused and made my position clear.
Jameske</HTML>
