Perfect!!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm not sure that it was a "failure to stand up for themselves" that relegated the aboriginal peoples of the world to slavery at the hands of foreign conquistadors, but perhaps more likely technological disadvantage.

Why do you think the white man had so much more military technology than indigenous peoples in places like Latin Am, Asia and Africa?

It's because the white man, at one point in history, was more militaristic and aggressive than the rest of us.

Military technological advantages do not arise out of the ether. They arise when the cultures that give rise to these advantages are aggressive and hostile. The mindset, the need to conquer and subdue, comes first. From this comes the drive to beat the enemy, and then comes the technology to do that.

Peaceful and passive cultures did not invent the nuclear bomb.

As for cycles, hell yeah. Look at the world around you as it is today. The bastion of the white man (Europe) is getting more and more passive every day. The United States has a burgeoning "give peace a chance" movement. Which cultures today are the most aggressive and militaristic? Today they may not have the technology but their drive and aggression will make sure that one day, probably another hundred years or so, they will. And that day the next cycle will begin.

JMHO.

[desert_fox 32]

DF,

Was there a reply in there somewhere?

***********************************************

my reply was buried somewhere in all of those quotes.

My point was that near where I live, there is a bunch of reform mormon poligamists, not sure what they call themselves. Its in Colorado City, Arizona.

These guys marry off their 16 year daughter to their 52 year old uncle as their 6th wife.

Until recently, the state of Arizona did little to stop this practice of child abuse. Should they be allowed to continue in the name of religion?

I see them every day. Many come here with teir families to work in construction. Same braided hair and same clothing. The wives all shop together, but I sure feel sorry for the young ladies that are trapped in this culture.

[mikeize 0]

[

Why do you think the white man had so much more military technology than indigenous peoples in places like Latin Am, Asia and Africa?

It's because the white man, at one point in history, was more militaristic and aggressive than the rest of us.

Military technological advantages do not arise out of the ether. They arise when the cultures that give rise to these advantages are aggressive and hostile. The mindset, the need to conquer and subdue, comes first. From this comes the drive to beat the enemy, and then comes the technology to do that.

Peaceful and passive cultures did not invent the nuclear bomb.

As for cycles, hell yeah. Look at the world around you as it is today. The bastion of the white man (Europe) is getting more and more passive every day. The United States has a burgeoning "give peace a chance" movement. Which cultures today are the most aggressive and militaristic? Today they may not have the technology but their drive and aggression will make sure that one day, probably another hundred years or so, they will. And that day the next cycle will begin.

JMHO.

It's refreshing to discuss this issue in context for a change. Really though you're still simplifying a bit there (you probably are aware). Even IF aggression is the key factor here (I've got my doubts), you can further seek reasons for the aggression. From what I understand (a lot admittedly comes from "Guns Germs and Steel"), it is ultimately a question of geography. As the earliest cultures were shaped by geography and migration, technologies and value systems did or didn't appear.

Yeah, some people are warlike (think Spartans, Apaches, etc), and hold war and conquest as highest moral ends unto themselves. Do we? Perhaps but then what we lack is the honesty to look that legacy in the face and embrace it. Cuz right now, it seems like we are rejecting that legacy, but at the same time saying we'd quite like to continue hoarding the spoils. That's what makes me laugh.

-mike

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Really though you're still simplifying a bit there (you probably are aware).

[...]

Cuz right now, it seems like we are rejecting that legacy, but at the same time saying we'd quite like to continue hoarding the spoils.

Of course I'm oversimplifying. Of course there are other issues involved like geography and pure dumb luck. But fact remains cultures that have no interest in conquest, won't. Cultures that have an interest in establishing dominion over others, might. European cultures had an interest and they had other factors in their favor that helped them along.

But without the drive, nothing happens.

As for the United States... yes, we publicly reject the legacy. And then we go on to celebrate the instruments that made it all possible. The military. The soldier. The spoils of war (Texas, for example).

Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Why would you voluntarily give up the very things that made you strong? Why would you volunteer to be weak and be subdued by others instead of being part of the team that does the subduing? Why would you volunteer to give up the things that are evidence to others of your past strength?

[mikeize 0]

Two things come to mind. First, is conquest always in our favor? Surely you don't have to think very hard to come up with some examples of "phirric victories", or ones that came back to haunt us? You might even contend that a policy/history of conquest is a major contributing factor to our most pressing problems today. Second, and again, why not just make outright and total conquest our sole aim as a nation? The reason of course goes back to earlier points we both made, about legacies and whatnot. And THAT goes to my point above. If conquest has ultimately had the effect of making the conqueror weak and guilt-ridden... where is the victory? What does pride do for your soul? Has man no higher potential than to organize in arbitrary bands and attack others?

I don't know, but I hope and suspect not. Okay, metaphysical rambling alert...

-mike

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If conquest has ultimately had the effect of making the conqueror weak and guilt-ridden... where is the victory?

Ultiimately is a long time. And besides, I'm not sold that there is a clear causative link between a successful conquer and ultimate weakening. A lot of it has to do with how your culture, and the culture of the conquered nation, evolves after the conquer (IMO).

[mikeize 0]

If conquest has ultimately had the effect of making the conqueror weak and guilt-ridden... where is the victory?

Ultiimately is a long time. And besides, I'm not sold that there is a clear causative link between a successful conquer and ultimate weakening. A lot of it has to do with how your culture, and the culture of the conquered nation, evolves after the conquer (IMO).

Longer than your lifetime, eh? Not blaming, just making sure. And for your second point... just going by historical trends, we've yet to see an empire that didn't fall. Even if one were able to wipe out all other cultures/civilizations, I'm pretty sure that the bottom would fall out of itself eventually (power struggles, class-war, religious divisions, etc.). Do you think America is rising or declining as an empire?

-mike

[Jaylen Brit 0]

I do agree with the point that if my religion says adulterers should be stoned to death, (for example) and this is indeed pleasing to the Lord (as per my religion), that - in a country with rules against murder - I should definitely be prevented from doing that.

If I don't like it, well I should go to a place where its allowed or encouraged or what have you.

We don't allow ritual sacrifice any more in either the US or the UK - we DO allow 'symbolic ritual sacrifice' and if thats the law of the land I choose (note the word CHOOSE) to live in then thats the law I should follow.

(Personalised to avoid accidental offense)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If conquest has ultimately had the effect of making the conqueror weak and guilt-ridden... where is the victory?

Ultiimately is a long time.

Longer than your lifetime, eh?

[...]

Do you think America is rising or declining as an empire?

Right, longer than my lifetime. I'm human, aren't I? Nothing is forever, so why worry about what happens in 200 years?

As for America rising or declining... fukc if I know. I prefer pontificating in hindsight

[mikeize 0]

If conquest has ultimately had the effect of making the conqueror weak and guilt-ridden... where is the victory?

Ultiimately is a long time.

Longer than your lifetime, eh?

[...]

Do you think America is rising or declining as an empire?

Right, longer than my lifetime. I'm human, aren't I? Nothing is forever, so why worry about what happens in 200 years?

As for America rising or declining... fukc if I know. I prefer pontificating in hindsight

I really am with you. If I am hungry enough, I will try to kill and eat you... but for the love of my children I would sacrifice myself for them (biology manifesting as human-value?). I sincerely believe in self-preservation. That is why I must always cheer for those without enough to eat, more than I must fight for my "right" to a $70 cheeseburger.

You are right that nothing is forever. Not even ikea, or your job, or the satisfaction you get from a glazed donut. Whee.

-mike

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You are right that nothing is forever. Not even ikea, or your job...

Don't I know it. 75% chance of layoffs in July

[mikeize 0]

do wot feelz gud... tomorrow may not come... shopping and eating are the twin angels of our blessed existence... maintain vigilance that others do not try to lick the frosting from your daily wedding (yellow) cake... bombs are the best defense... build a wall between yourself and your brothers and sisters... destroy your own freedoms so no one else can get their filthy mitts on them... live long and perspire...

=

[LenJayUS 0]

this kinda skewed off topic huh?

So..anyone think the Aussies are WRONG? Or right but a bit harsh about it? Or RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT?

I am gonna go for #2..but thats cos Im such a wuss about confrontation

The UK tends to be a bit of a melting pot - possibly due to our historical habit of absorbing other cultures - sometimes literally having conquered half the world - only to be made to give it back again when the natives realised what we were up to (meh, and we still have Gibraltar and the Falklands hidden in a safe spot, lol).

Now a lot of those previously annexed lands come and settle here - which is kinda karmic - cos we stripped their countries back in the day...

I'll take door number 3 please... I'm so sick and tired of governments trying to make everyone like them and not offend anyone. Makes me sick.

Here in the US, you have all these haters that demand that any kind of form of religion be totally removed from anything government related... you know.. christmas tree's and easter bunnies and then that scene of some kid in a barn with camels and wisemen all around....

I find it all quite ridiculous... and I'm not religious. Don't believe at all. I have no problem with people in the government celebrating things like that... they are not forcing me to believe in their religion... I can accept, and live quite well actually, with the understanding that this country was built by the founding fathers using christian ideals and the like.

If people come here (or any other country with a different foundation) and they can't accept it.. then sod off.

[nina1 0]

This is a very interesting topic!

After thanksgiving dinner a few mths ago, my husband's brother's spanish wife was telling me that Canada was being discriminatory by forcing the children of immigrant parents to go to a french school up until they graduate from high school. She was trying to make me feel bad, but it didn't work.

I argued with her saying that Canada is a country and Canada has a government that controls it, AND THEREFORE Canada is free to impose any law they choose (as long as it doesn't interfere with my beliefs). I think that any country has the right to make its own laws, and the immigrants of that country, be it muslims or not, have no right to impose their beliefs! As one person stated earlier, if he were to go to Saudi Arabia, he would have to follow the laws of THAT country!

Now this said, i would like to agree that Canada embraces multiculturalism. I will always love my Canada even though i now live in the US. And now that i'm here, i go by US rules!

For those that keep saying that immigrants need to learn english, put this one thing ill say in mind. When my wonderful Canada forced me to go to a French school, i learned the language so well, that i ended up tutoring it to some "real" French Candians, who shoulda been the ones to tutor me! They were so patriotic "I'm a quebecor, i don't need to learn english, blbalblal...." and i had to teach THEM about french grammar! Now who do you think will get a job first?? Me or the "french Canadian"?? In other words, my beloved Canada was benefiting me instead of "its own people" without being aware of it..

So if an immigrant doesn't learn the english language, hey, he's harming himself! Let him stay uneducated or he might "steal" your job some day!! My father was an honor student in England with a masters degree in Chemical engineering. When we came to Canada though, he never learned french well enough to be able to get a job related to his field, because french was always mandatory. THIS was HIS problem though!! Someone else got the job that my dad shoulda gotten if only he learned the language!!

Hmm, think about it next time you say you want an immigrant to adapt to "your" country. I fully agree that after 10yrs they shoulda learned the language, and it bugs me when they don't , but if they choose to be like that, all the better for me!

And for those that said immigrants need to take on the culture of that country, i disagree. What makes a country so beautiful and unique IS the diversity of it!

[Fuzzness 2]

hey now.... I don't openly admit Quebec exists for a reason