Essay talk:All Cultures Are Not Equal

Wealth vs. Culture

I like your essay, but many of these things you describe can also be interpreted as a consequence of one nation's wealth over another's. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

But Europe and USA were not born wealthy were they? Why is it that wealth, education and healthcare seem to be on the side of Western culture. Sure you could make up an excuse and say that black people (they love victim roles) are the smartest (but they have been suppressed by devil whites) but it's just not so. Natives had this land to them for YEARS... They could not dress properly for crying out loud!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if Europeans are inherently better at acquiring wealth, then why was Europe pretty poor on the international scale from roughly 500 AD to roughly 1500 AD? Evil Zionist (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, you're not even correct. Africa has produced many noteworthy civilizations, it's just that Africa is an entire continent, and Europe just happened to target the weaker parts for enslavement. It'd be like saying the Mongols are a superior culture because they were able to carry back thousands of the Sami people for enslavement. Furthermore, I think you're forgetting many Pre-Columbian civilizations in Mesoamerica that were famously wealthy. That's why the Europeans colonized the damn place. The Vikings left Canada because the natives there were much like the Vikings themselves; not too wealthy and not easily conquerable. But when you know those temples have gold and the people are dropping dead in the streets from the smallpox you gave them, and you have five hundred years of experience killing each other on them, then it's really easy to see why Spain was able to take over most of the Americas, and culture didn't have a damn thing to do with it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to focus on wealth an awful lot

Let me tell you something there, fella; There are plenty of rich places where life is worse than in less well off places. And a country that turns into a dictatorship may even have an economic boom or all I care, but it sure as hell ain't no nice place to live, no. Never. Evil Zionist (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Look at it from an historical perspective; wealthier countries usually can raise more troops, equip more armies with better weapons, feed their populaces, and fund wars for longer periods of time. To focus on wealth in this context is not wrong in and of itself. It's just that the way this is done is not the right one. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wealth? SERIOUSLY... Look at Islamic countries... They have ALL THE OIL... Why are Islamic countries shit holes compared to Countries like Norway or Finland? Why is Islamic culture behind in LITERALLY everything? What is it? Cultural appropriation? White supremacy? Micro aggression? Privilege?

OR MAYBE, just MAYBE it is time we start admitting that the problem might lie in OURSELVES... Some African students believe that all of science must fall and be replaced by decolonized "science" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i80qaETtw8 .... Other Liberals believe that literature curriculum is not "diverse" enough... Yet others blame statues. If you are getting offended by statues, literature, science, whites it is your problem... WHY CAN'T we say... that not all cultures are equal without embarrassment. I am a descendant of Georgians, living on Mt Caucasus... I do not claim that my culture is on par with Norwegians. Why is it so hard to state this without bullshit excuses?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

For starters, Islamic science was indeed the jumping-off point for much of European scientific advancement. In the 13th (?) century, the decline of the Abbasid Caliphate caused a fundamentalist Islamic resurgence that set Islamic science back decades. Then the Mongols came, sacked Baghdad, and the Muslim world's scientific progress was set back centuries. Many of these advances survived in the Byzantine Empire and Muslim Spain, however, and as Byzantine refugees fled to Europe and the Reconquista took back Spain, and these advances became part of the rising mercantile and artisan classes of the European renaissance. Then colonialism on the part of the Ottoman Empire and, later, the various European nations happened, and the pillaging of resources put the already badly fractured Muslim world in a bit of a tight spot. Also, wealth does matter. To address your ancestral home, Georgia never had much material or agricultural wealth, which meant neighboring countries that did (Persia, Russia, etc.) easily conquered it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is secondary... Why is it offensive to suggest that UK culture is not on the same level as Pakistani culture? Why is this politically incorrect? Islam did espouse science early on... But in today's world Islam and science are all but oxy-moron. You have a culture that treats women like second class citizens, that believes that atheists and gays should be killed and have 100% Islamic country based on Sharia... on one hand you have that culture and you contrast that with the culture, healthcare, education and democracy of the Fins. Which mentality would be more successful (with or without money)? How are they equal?Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you make a point that many progressives agree with. Unfortunately, the reason that it's "politically incorrect" is that points like the ones you make form the basis of the Motte and baileys often used by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. I can agree that gender discrimination is an objectively bad thing. What I don't agree with is the all-too-common leap of logic from the previous statement to "we should nuke Mecca right now DEUS VULT!" So it can be boiled down to "humans aren't good with positions in moderation." Go ask Smerdis if you want more examples of this. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

1)I never said "we" should nuke mecca... 2) Just because something is used by Neo-Nazis does not automatically make it wrong. Neo-Nazis (well leaders at least) have more interest in power. Hitler did not state he was gonna lock Germany down and was gonna make every citizen give a Nazi salute... Nazism has little to do with these issues. Modern Germans did NOT build this culture, they inherited it. They do not have to do the work of refining old Medieval values to find better ones. Why is this so hard for other people?Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed you wanted to nuke Mecca. I was just saying that many people who do want to nuke Mecca use that argument. And you are correct, in that just because neo-Nazis say something does not make it automatically wrong. It does, however, make people without Nazi sympathies not want to say those things out of fear of looking like neo-Nazis.

Nazism was often an ally with some Muslim leaders due to mutual hatred of Jews, the French, and the British. However, neo-Nazism uses issues in the Middle East as a way to gain power in this day and age. Furthermore, Germany does not have to deal with Medieval baggage because it benefits from wealth and knowledge derived from the work of Muslim, Greek, and Chinese scientists/philosophers. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether they mixed up Chinese philosophy or not does not make a difference... This debate focuses on the hesitance of people to admit that some cultures are CLEARLY superior to others whatever the reason or in MANY cases excuse might be. It's that simple. There are SIMPLE FACTS

FACT: Germany National team is BETTER than Iran

FACT: African American Vernacular English is NOT on the same level with Standard English. AND IT DOES NOT matter whether you consider this as White Cis-Men privilege, or racial :::::::::micro-aggression.

FACT: Western culture is more developed than ANY OTHER one NOW!

See how easy it is? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're judging a culture by soccer teams, accomplishments that could only have happened because of other cultural advances, and the grammatical ability of a racial group that was brought here for the sole purpose of being a slave caste, and ever since has been kept as far down the social ladder as possible through denial of education, the ballot, or the means to receive either? Sure, you can say one culture has more advanced values or technology, but superior? How does one define a culture as "superior?" And also, I pointed out above why people are hesitant to say it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC) Saying that AAVE is not on the same level with standard English is just stupid. Exactly why isn't it on the same level? Because it 'sounds' dumber? Because it's from a different culture than yours? Also, I would like to note that giving a culture an arbitrary number is pointless, and that a number leaves out many qualities in a culture that are very good things. It's the same reason I hate when men give women a number. "Oooohhh look at her she's an 8" is degrading and ignores everything but physical attraction. It's the same thing with your number system grading cultures. L'homme Idéal (je rigole). 03:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Another thing is that many cultures, while professing "enlightened" values, run roughshod over those values when they want something. The United States loves freedom and democracy...except when it's inconvenient. Western countries treat women with respect and equality, except when we don't. A culture should not be judged just on the values it professes, but on the values it actually practices. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Because butchering a language and dumbing down "big words" is a sign of anti-intellectualism? Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

AAVE is no more or less "butchered" English than Southern drawl, Cockney or Scots. If you think languages have an a priori worth or value to them, you don't know much about language. Evil Zionist (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the point?

I read this article. What's your point?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 04:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do people feel uncomfortable with facts?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Which facts? That the culture of failed states like Texas is clearly inferior to the culture of California? That secession is an expression of the inferior slave-holding culture of the South? That calling all of Africa "one culture" is a bit like saying Chile and Japan are "the same culture". Evil Zionist (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Your going at it the wrong way

If you say "Western Culture is superior", you're going at it the wrong way. Because those things now present in the west (and previously present elsewhere to some degree) are not "western" by their nature and those things that are undoubtedly "western" are not better than some eastern counterparts. Aristotle is no better or worse than Confucius, the belief in YHWH is no better or worse than the belief in the Great Big Spirit. However, human rights, secularism, tolerance for minorities, equality before the law and all those modern trappings are not eastern or western, they're universal. And if you start branding them as "western innovations" that "the West" came up with due to its inherently superior culture and if you reject Aristotle and the Cathedral of someplace and Baby Jesus, you reject "the West" and thus "its advances" like all the stuff mentioned and more, you start losing the argument. Because adhering to universal notions is much easier to swallow than copying "western" ideas. Japan did copy a lot of "western" stuff in the 1850s. Including treating POWs like human beings. During the 1930s, an intense Japanese nationalism grew hold and increasingly "western" notions were rejected by those in power. And the POWs of the Pacific War can sing a song of how that went. Had the idea that POWs are people been sold to them as a "universal" notion, not a western one, grounded in reason and logic and not "because that's what Prussia and England do", it might have grown deeper roots. Similarly, rejecting "the West" in the Arab world means rejecting all those values as mentioned above. And again, they are not Western values, they are universal values. And should be sold as such. And it should be clear that Germany is as capable of failing those values as Swaziland is of upholding those values, given the right circumstances. Secular Arab states are not impossible. And democracy can take hold in all "cultures". There is nothing in Southern culture that makes them clinch to the traitor flag and abusing black people for ever. Unless we make them believe racism is just "their culture" and hate is just their heritage. Evil Zionist (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"religions not equal"

You write:

"Most atheists (RATIONAL WIKI INCLUDED) have no problem admitting that not all religions are equal."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could make the case they are not all equally wrong. I suppose you could argue that a religion that believes in a young earth or a global flood would be more "wrong" than one that that at least pays lip service to observational facts. But I don't think that's what you mean.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)