Roxana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I expected this topic to turn into a forum for
> West-bashing and it has.

To a certain extent, that follows almost by definition. Europeans spread out and profited GREATLY at the expense of non-Europeans. Non-Europeans STILL make up the majority of the world's population. Thus, the largest negative impacts for the largest fraction of the world's population.... will in many cases turn out to be either caused by Europeans, or else things that profited Europeans.

But it's not "west bashing" per se, I think, as much as it is "top of the pyramid bashing". If Islam had conquered all of Europe, we'd be Arab bashing. If the Mongols hadn't been stopped by Ghenghis Khan's death, we'd be Mongol bashing. If Egypt had focused resources on expansion rather than the afterlife, we'd be Egypt bashing. Our list of "bad things that happened" is slanted in the direction of whoever had the biggest impact.

BTW, in my case, I may not have made it clear enough that my #1 (conquest of the Americas) was something that hurt the ENTIRE world, including Europe.

I mean, yeah, Europe got rich and conquered much of the world for a while, and the "West" is still dominant for now..... albeit sinking. But Spain ended up with a ruined economy (sudden influx of wealth, specie in particular, erased most of it's local industry & caused massive inflation, etc). And Europe's ecology was badly damaged by introduced species & pathogens. And the industrial revolution (greatly fueled by crops & resources & medicines from the Americas) polluted it worse than it did the U.S. And the world wars hit it hardest (arguably wouldn't have existed, without the Conquest & colonialism, etc, etc).

And there is a pretty solid trail leading from contact with Native Americans (in part re the non-feudalistic quasi-democratic nature of NA societies, in larger part re misunderstandings and misconceptions like the "Noble savage" nonsense) to a whole bunch of -isms (anarchism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc) that evolved in Europe as part of the social upheaval (part philosophical related, part economical, etc) & experimental social engineering that came about in the centuries following contact. And we all know how THOSE negatively impacted Europe.

Not to mention the bad rep that Europe's actions gave it. And the lingering "White guilt" that doesn't seem to wash off, no matter how hard some people try.

So no, in the long run the Conquest of the Americas wasn't good for the Conquerors, either.

> Personally I wonder if losses and setbacks might
> not be necessary to clear the ground for change.
> Of course if statis is your ideal this would be a
> Bad Thing.

Eh, they might be needed for FAST or MASSIVE change. But then, this tends to be "jump before you look" "induced by panic or desperation" change, and doesn't neccessarily take you in a better direction.

Stasis is NOT the only alternative, in fact, it's rare as hell. SLOW, gradual change is much more common.

Kenuchelover.