|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I haven't studied development economics, but you could say that about the economies. Also, lots of African countries have the resource curse where they rely on primary resources instead of developing diverse economies, a lot of which has to do with corrupt leadership. |
Your position is that Africans will thrive in "diverse economies" where resource extraction isn't the primary/sole industry? |
No, my position is that I haven't studied development economics and am not sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I haven't studied development economics, but you could say that about the economies. Also, lots of African countries have the resource curse where they rely on primary resources instead of developing diverse economies, a lot of which has to do with corrupt leadership. |
Your position is that Africans will thrive in "diverse economies" where resource extraction isn't the primary/sole industry? |
No, my position is that I haven't studied development economics and am not sure. |
Development economics doesn't have the answers. As a discipline it is not quite sure how societies develop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I haven't studied development economics, but you could say that about the economies. Also, lots of African countries have the resource curse where they rely on primary resources instead of developing diverse economies, a lot of which has to do with corrupt leadership. |
Your position is that Africans will thrive in "diverse economies" where resource extraction isn't the primary/sole industry? |
No, my position is that I haven't studied development economics and am not sure. |
Development economics doesn't have the answers. As a discipline it is not quite sure how societies develop. |
Fair enough, I agree. I was being a little flip when I said that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
These states are new and have not had the chance to work out their differences yet. European states are in a different level of development. |
It's interesting that you phrase it that way. Why can we not provide the exact same answer regarding African poverty? "Oh, African states are poorer than European states? It's because they have a different level of development." Instead, though, when it comes to such economic matters, European are reflexively blamed. Even you keep coming back and trying to attribute African violence to European-drawn borders: |
I'm not in the business of blame. |
I'll take you at your word, and that's fine, maybe even laudable. None the less, it doesn't categorically excuse you from discussing blame. Like it or not, blame is an actual systematic force in the social world, and it has impact on real-world results even on a national scale, so it cannot simply be ejected from the discussion.
| Leon wrote: |
It can, but there is great resistance to recognizing the new states.
...
I think the borders will change over time, but it will be for the most part a slow and very difficult process. |
Slow and difficult is fine. Many things worth doing take both time and effort. Accordingly, we can henceforth cease lamenting the "artificial borders" laid down by the colonial powers in the past, and instead focus on the fact that if the denizens of these nations are unhappy with said borders, they have some real work to do in order to rearrange things more to their liking. Those efforts can either come in the form of voluntarily alterations of borders (challenging, but demonstrably possible), or cultural unification efforts (also challenging, but also demonstrably possible). Neither will be aided through shifting blame to European powers (yes, I realize you aren't blaming anyone, but much blame is still at work, and it's not constructive).
| Leon wrote: |
This is unrelated to what I am discussing here. There is a vast difference between a new state without national identity and European countries that have some of the oldest national identities in existence. I keep on saying culture isn't the key variable to what we are discussing it is national identity.
...
Identity is not culture. Identity just means that the people in that state identify with being members of that state at a higher level than they identify with things like tribes or other sub identities. |
I don't see how you can even begin to draw a concrete line between your conception of collective national identity and culture. It's conversation-obstructingly wrong. You might "keep on saying it," but you're going to have to do more than say it to convince me that a sense of collective national identity is non-cultural in character. Indeed, it's only because it's cultural in character that we can even entertain your notion that older nations have an advantage in such a regard: their advantage lies in the development of cultures which include national identity.
I think this needs to be resolved before the conversation can meaningfully progress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There is a common denominator between Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, |
They are all 'diverse.' Diversity, whether it be ethnic, religious, or racial, is generally not a strength, but a weakness. Can we all at least agree on that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There is a common denominator between Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, |
They are all 'diverse.' Diversity, whether it be ethnic, religious, or racial, is generally not a strength, but a weakness. Can we all at least agree on that? |
America is diverse. America is the strongest most succesful nation. It is the most diverse. Work harder to earn this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There is a common denominator between Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, |
They are all 'diverse.' Diversity, whether it be ethnic, religious, or racial, is generally not a strength, but a weakness. Can we all at least agree on that? |
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There is a common denominator between Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, |
They are all 'diverse.' Diversity, whether it be ethnic, religious, or racial, is generally not a strength, but a weakness. Can we all at least agree on that? |
America is diverse. America is the strongest most succesful nation. It is the most diverse. Work harder to earn this one. |
It is currently the world's strongest nation and was at the height of its power at the end of WW2, when it was far less diverse (90% white) than it is today. It will be interesting to see how an increasingly 'diverse' US (with no dominant ethnic or racial group) fares in the 21st century vis-a-vis China (over 90% Han Chinese). It will also be interesting to see how diversity plays out in Europe. You have already pointed out the weaknesses of diversity in Africa, but can't qute bring yourself to follow through on where this argument takes you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
These states are new and have not had the chance to work out their differences yet. European states are in a different level of development. |
It's interesting that you phrase it that way. Why can we not provide the exact same answer regarding African poverty? "Oh, African states are poorer than European states? It's because they have a different level of development." Instead, though, when it comes to such economic matters, European are reflexively blamed. Even you keep coming back and trying to attribute African violence to European-drawn borders: |
I'm not in the business of blame. |
I'll take you at your word, and that's fine, maybe even laudable. None the less, it doesn't categorically excuse you from discussing blame. Like it or not, blame is an actual systematic force in the social world, and it has impact on real-world results even on a national scale, so it cannot simply be ejected from the discussion. |
It can, I just did. I simply don't think it is that important. Do colonial powers deserve some blame for what they did, sure. Do post-colonial states need to move beyond that, sure. Does it matter compared to the structural issues I've laid out, I very much doubt it. If they do or do not blame the colonial powers, it won't change the internal dynamics. South Korea and China still very much blame Japan, yet are relatively succesful.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
It can, but there is great resistance to recognizing the new states.
...
I think the borders will change over time, but it will be for the most part a slow and very difficult process. |
Slow and difficult is fine. Many things worth doing take both time and effort. Accordingly, we can henceforth cease lamenting the "artificial borders" laid down by the colonial powers in the past, and instead focus on the fact that if the denizens of these nations are unhappy with said borders, they have some real work to do in order to rearrange things more to their liking. Those efforts can either come in the form of voluntarily alterations of borders (challenging, but demonstrably possible), or cultural unification efforts (also challenging, but also demonstrably possible). Neither will be aided through shifting blame to European powers (yes, I realize you aren't blaming anyone, but much blame is still at work, and it's not constructive). |
A lot of the time it will happen like it happened in Europe, through violence, which is what we've seen in lots of these places. In SA, maybe cultural unification, thats what Mandela tried, but that's slow. In some places its probably impossible due to where the resources are, or other states not allowing breakaway provinces- i.e. Cechnya and Kurdistan.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
This is unrelated to what I am discussing here. There is a vast difference between a new state without national identity and European countries that have some of the oldest national identities in existence. I keep on saying culture isn't the key variable to what we are discussing it is national identity.
...
Identity is not culture. Identity just means that the people in that state identify with being members of that state at a higher level than they identify with things like tribes or other sub identities. |
I don't see how you can even begin to draw a concrete line between your conception of collective national identity and culture. It's conversation-obstructingly wrong. You might "keep on saying it," but you're going to have to do more than say it to convince me that a sense of collective national identity is non-cultural in character. Indeed, it's only because it's cultural in character that we can even entertain your notion that older nations have an advantage in such a regard: their advantage lies in the development of cultures which include national identity.
I think this needs to be resolved before the conversation can meaningfully progress. |
Culture is a big thing. Is identity a part of culture, yes, is it the same as culture no. I guess calling it nationalism would be a closer fit. Culture comes with a lot of things that aren't relevant to this model. I guess saying identity is not culture is incorrect as you pointed out. Do you understand what I mean? If you say culture that brings in things like holidays and folk beliefs and all these other things that obstruct the clarity of my argument. I'm focusing on a particular, narrow, aspect of culture as being most important to how well a post WWII state will function. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There is a common denominator between Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, |
They are all 'diverse.' Diversity, whether it be ethnic, religious, or racial, is generally not a strength, but a weakness. Can we all at least agree on that? |
America is diverse. America is the strongest most succesful nation. It is the most diverse. Work harder to earn this one. |
It is currently the world's strongest nation and was at the height of its power at the end of WW2, when it was far less diverse (90% white) than it is today. It will be interesting to see how an increasingly 'diverse' US (with no dominant ethnic or racial group) fares in the 21st century vis-a-vis China (over 90% Han Chinese). It will also be interesting to see how diversity plays out in Europe. You have already pointed out the weaknesses of diversity in Africa, but can't qute bring yourself to follow through on where this argument takes you. |
No, I didn't focus on diversity I focused on identity. China is weak compared to the U.S. in almost every way except perhaps size and population, and maybe strategic position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ersatzredux
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Location: Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| South Africa was better off under white rule. So was Birmingham and Detroit. And everywhere else. White people are really good at running things. |
Yes, we sure are, if you meant to finish off the sentence with "into the ground". Unless I'm getting you wrong. What "things", precisely, are you referring to?
And yes, I took the bait |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No, I didn't focus on diversity I focused on identity |
The countries you listed (Lebabon, Iraq, Sri Lanka, S.Africa etc), plus innumerable nations in Africa, have no clear sense of identity precisely because they are ethnically diverse. Yugoslavia collapsed after the strongman died because there was nothing to hold together the various ethnic groups after he was gone, since its 'diversity' prevented any strong sense of identity. The more diverse your nation becomes, the greater the likelihood of conflict becomes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I'm not in the business of blame. |
| Leon wrote: |
| Do colonial powers deserve some blame for what they did, sure. |
So first you say you aren't in the "blame game." Then you say Europeans deserve blame for the state of African nations, while simultaneously insisting you've ejected blame from the conversation because it's "not important?"
| Leon wrote: |
Culture is a big thing. Is identity a part of culture, yes, is it the same as culture no. |
In conceding identity as a part of culture, you're conceding to my entire position.
| Leon wrote: |
| Culture comes with a lot of things that aren't relevant to this model. I guess saying identity is not culture is incorrect as you pointed out. Do you understand what I mean? If you say culture that brings in things like holidays and folk beliefs and all these other things that obstruct the clarity of my argument. |
If some elements of culture (e.g. festivals) do not contribute to disparity, while other elements of culture (e.g. national identity) do contribute to disparity, then it is completely fair and correct to suggest that culture contributes to disparity, which is precisely what I suggested in the post with which you took issue. You can't seriously believe I meant "holidays" or the like when talking about culture, can you? That the Chinese are better off than many African nations because of the Dragon Boat Festival? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No, I didn't focus on diversity I focused on identity |
The countries you listed (Lebabon, Iraq, Sri Lanka, S.Africa etc), plus innumerable nations in Africa, have no clear sense of identity precisely because they are ethnically diverse. Yugoslavia collapsed after the strongman died because there was nothing to hold together the various ethnic groups after he was gone, since its 'diversity' prevented any strong sense of identity. The more diverse your nation becomes, the greater the likelihood of conflict becomes. |
You have to explain away America before we can go down this road. I think identity does an adequate job of explaining the situation. If you want to say its correlated with diversity, then you would have a strong case. Standard disclaimer of correlation doesn't show causation, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What "things", precisely, are you referring to? |
I presume he means organisations, businesses, and civil services. The British, for example, ran far more effective, and less corrupt, administrations than most post-independence governments. Just look at Zimbabwe since the end of White rule, or even Jamaica.....
"Most Jamaicans believe they would be better off if they were still ruled by Britain, a poll shows. In a harsh indictment of nearly 50 years of independence, 60 per cent of those surveyed hanker for the days when the country was Britain’s biggest Caribbean colony"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009487/We-stayed-Britain-Shock-poll-reveals-60-Jamaicans-think-theyd-better-colony.html#ixzz2nJVJ7i5c
| Quote: |
| Yes, we sure are, if you meant to finish off the sentence with "into the ground". |
White people ran Detroit into the ground? Since the 1970s, every single major has been black. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
