|
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 5:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| 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?" |
I think objectively it's fair to say that colonial powers deserve some blame, just like its fair to say that post colonial states shouldn't focus on that as it is counterproductive. I'm not interested in that, its not, as previously said, what I'm in the business of doing. You insisted we discuss it, so I conceded it existed, then I ejected it because it is not very important. Do you really think South Korea blaming Japan is a major problem for Korea economically, or in terms of cohesion, or how it functions, or etc. etc.? Its not good, but I don't think it is a major source of trouble.
| 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.[quote="Fox"]
No, because you want to use the umbrella term culture, and I am say most of what is meant by culture is mostly irrelevant.
| Fox wrote: |
| 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? |
No, I was using that as an example of how wide culture is. I don't know what you mean because you were not specific. I have some ideas of what I think you meant, but perhaps I am wrong. I don't think it is fair to say that culture contributes to disparity, because while yes it is true, it isn't that useful. Culture is too wide of a term to use in that manner. If you want to tell me what you mean by culture, then maybe we would even agree, but I have no way of knowing because there is a very wide range of things you could be trying to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 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. |
You talk as if there is no connection between diversity and identity, which is of course aburd. You said one of the reasons for African nations' lack of development is because they lack a strong national identity, because they were fictitious nations created at the whim of colonial powers, and which contain numerous tribes and ethnicities, which is all true. They lack any identity because they are so diverse. Nigeria, for example, is not just split between numerous ethnic groups and tribes, but north and south between Muslim and Christian. As a result, it is corrupt, violent, and largely ungovernable.
As for the US, I think its historic diversity is overstated. It was founded, largely, by the British, who laid down its law, traditions, and constitution. All the immigrant groups who came after them were expected to assimilate--and they largely did--into this 'Anglo' American culture (Samuel Huntington has written about this). So, America, at least until the 1960s sought to alleviate the problems associated with ethnic diversity by encouraging people to adopt this new American identity and all that it entailed. This has been undermined since the 1960s with the advent of non-European immigration (especially from Mexico) and the adoption of multiculturalism. The example of the US does not refute my argument that diversity undermines national identity. Indeed, I find it far more likely that as the country becomes more diverse, and more disunited and dysfunctional, it will serve as an example of the downsides of diversity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I think objectively it's fair to say that colonial powers deserve some blame ... |
Then you're in the blame game, and moreover, taking a very strong stance on the matter by saying Europeans are indisputably and objectively blameworthy vis a vis African poverty and dysfunction. You reinforce my point: the very intellectual orthodoxy which compels you to make such declarations is very much an active force in the world, and it has consequences. When I talk about culture being a cause, it's precisely this rhetoric of blame and victimhood I'm opposing.
| Leon wrote: |
| You insisted we discuss it, so I conceded it existed, then I ejected it because it is not very important. Do you really think South Korea blaming Japan is a major problem for Korea economically, or in terms of cohesion, or how it functions, or etc. etc.? Its not good, but I don't think it is a major source of trouble. |
Residual blame, resentment, and hostility between China, Korea, and Japan is detrimental to all three nations, to say nothing of North Korea. East Asian nations, however, have a hugely valuable resource African nations lack: a high IQ population, so it should be no surprise that they achieve better results. Absent blame and hostility, though, they'd likely fare even better.
| Leon wrote: |
| I don't think it is fair to say that culture contributes to disparity, because while yes it is true, it isn't that useful. |
It's not fair to say true things?
| Leon wrote: |
| Culture is too wide of a term to use in that manner. |
No it isn't. The value of invoking culture as an explanatory factor, even without further qualification, lies in emphasizing from which direction a solution to a given problem must come. If a given problem is caused by outside exploitation, for example, then outsiders could obviously assist in its resolution by ceasing the exploitation. If a given problem is caused by an absence of particular resources, outsiders could assist by providing those resources. If a given problem is caused by culture, outsiders can do very little, and ought to be very careful about sticking their noses in the matter at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Fox"]
| Leon wrote: |
I think objectively it's fair to say that colonial powers deserve some blame ... |
Then you're in the blame game, and moreover, taking a very strong stance on the matter by saying Europeans are indisputably and objectively blameworthy vis a vis African poverty and dysfunction. You reinforce my point: the very intellectual orthodoxy which compels you to make such declarations is very much an active force in the world, and it has consequences. When I talk about culture being a cause, it's precisely this rhetoric of blame and victimhood I'm opposing. [\quote]
You badger me into talking about blame, and when I put a very qualified statement about the matter this is what you write? Yet you cut off the next part as if it doesn't exist.
[quote="Fox"]
| Leon wrote: |
| You insisted we discuss it, so I conceded it existed, then I ejected it because it is not very important. Do you really think South Korea blaming Japan is a major problem for Korea economically, or in terms of cohesion, or how it functions, or etc. etc.? Its not good, but I don't think it is a major source of trouble. |
Residual blame, resentment, and hostility between China, Korea, and Japan is detrimental to all three nations, to say nothing of North Korea. East Asian nations, however, have a hugely valuable resource African nations lack: a high IQ population, so it should be no surprise that they achieve better results. Absent blame and hostility, though, they'd likely fare even better.
| Leon wrote: |
| I don't think it is fair to say that culture contributes to disparity, because while yes it is true, it isn't that useful. |
It's not fair to say true things?[\quote]
It's not fair to say vauge things.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Culture is too wide of a term to use in that manner. |
No it isn't. The value of invoking culture as an explanatory factor, even without further qualification, lies in emphasizing from which direction a solution to a given problem must come. If a given problem is caused by outside exploitation, for example, then outsiders could obviously assist in its resolution by ceasing the exploitation. If a given problem is caused by an absence of particular resources, outsiders could assist by providing those resources. If a given problem is caused by culture, outsiders can do very little, and ought to be very careful about sticking their noses in the matter at all. |
I agree, they should solve it by themselves. There are some places where we can help, humanitarian aid if there is a natural disaster, not buying blood diamonds or supporting corrupt leaders, etc. but I am not really an advocate of interventionism. See, when you get specific we do not disagree as much as it seems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Leon, a question. One of your primary (regular, really) complaints is that Europeans pushed artificial borders on Africans that mixed tribal groups. Yet one of the intended long-term purposes of apartheid in South Africa was to separate the various African groups into their own territories, which would eventually evolve into nation states in their own right. Why was this in principle wrong, and if both mixed-tribe borders and segregated borders are "wrong," what could the right answer possibly be?
One possible complaint would be that the South African government was I sufficiently generous in terms of the land allotted to the various homelands. Let's put that aside for the moment: whether the policy was flawed in execution is less important for the moment than if it was flawed in principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Leon, a question. One of your primary (regular, really) complaints is that Europeans pushed artificial borders on Africans that mixed tribal groups. Yet one of the intended long-term purposes of apartheid in South Africa was to separate the various African groups into their own territories, which would eventually evolve into nation states in their own right. Why was this in principle wrong, and if both mixed-tribe borders and segregated borders are "wrong," what could the right answer possibly be?
One possible complaint would be that the South African government was I sufficiently generous in terms of the land allotted to the various homelands. Let's put that aside for the moment: whether the policy was flawed in execution is less important for the moment than if it was flawed in principle. |
Its not a complaint, its an explanation. Please stop ascribing to me value added words like complaint or blame that I don't claim. I don't see a point in complaining about the way things are, and I am not an activist with a placard.
The policy was so deeply flawed in execution that it is almost hard to consider the bit you are talking about in isolation. Even if you have borders focused on specific tribal identity, if they are forced on you by another group, it will be hard to accept it. It has to be a natural process, I think. This is part of the reason that I think the kind of imposed democratic governments in Afghanistan or Iraq are having so much trouble, you can't impose borders or governments on people and expect it to be succesful. There are certain things you can do to help the process, but it needs to be done by the people themselves. Also, completely separating by race, and race alone, as the basis isn't what I'm talking about. I believe it was the case that before apartheid there was some degree of the groups living together and interacting, which is again natural. Complete segregation is unnatural in most places.
"The first grand apartheid law was the Population Registration Act of 1950, which formalised racial classification and introduced an identity card for all persons over the age of 18, specifying their racial group.[25] Official teams or Boards were established to come to a conclusion on those people whose race was unclear.[26] This caused difficulty, especially for coloured people, separating their families when members were allocated different races.[27]
The second pillar of grand apartheid was the Group Areas Act of 1950.[28] Until then, most settlements had people of different races living side by side. This Act put an end to diverse areas and determined where one lived according to race. Each race was allotted its own area, which was used in later years as a basis of forced removal.[29] The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act of 1951 allowed the government to demolish black shanty town slums and forced white employers to pay for the construction of housing for those black workers who were permitted to reside in cities otherwise reserved for whites.[30]
The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 prohibited marriage between persons of different races, and the Immorality Act of 1950 made sexual relations with a person of a different race a criminal offence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa
Saying you can't marry someone of another race, or even have sex with them is beyond the scope of whether groups have a natural national identity, also, if they are forcibly relocated, there won't be that sense of connection with the land in what I mentioned in regards to historic borders.
In regards to correct answers, my somewhat unrealistic, hopeful, answer would be to recognize new states, like somaliland, forgive national debts that were created during colonial times, don't do business with corrupt leaders, if leaders cross certain lines in terms of abusing populations on grand scales indict them at the ICC, invest in the country when it is appropriate, provide humanitarian aid when appropriate, but do not just give money with no conditions like what currently happens, and give Africa some room to take care of their own problems. I don't really believe that most of this will happen, but you asked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for your answer, I think I understand your position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good, I don't think we are as far apart as it first seemed anyways, but sometimes it can be hard to articulate a somewhat complex idea clearly the first time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:08 am 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. |
The Roman Empire was very diverse. America diversified. You are basing diverse purely on racial terms. In American history, America took in millions of non protestant peoples. The Irish, eastern and southern Europeans were seen back then pretty much how Blacks and latinos are viewed today. In western America Asian immigration, notably the Chinese was the issue. In fact, a political party grew out of this and immigration was a far, far greater issue 100-150 years ago than it is now.
Nations have prospered with or without diversity. Diversity CAN be a strength depending on the circumstances. Its not automatically a negative as we have global empires that could NOT have been great without diversity (Roman Empire, U.S.A.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Otherside wrote: |
Let's clear a few things up.
First off, SA was by far the biggest economy in Africa prior to the end of Apartheid.
Secondly, No one "defeated" Apartheid. The decision to end Apartheid was taken by the white government and was supported by a referendum by the white population a few years later (A referendum which got 68% of the vote).
Obviously things such as sanctions, the end of the Cold War, and the liberation movements played a role, but from a military point of view, SA was no closer to falling than in the 60s and according Moeletsi Mbeki, SA was actually at its strongest. This is one of the reasons given for the NP choosing to negotiate at this time, to negotiate from a position of strength and ensure a fair deal.
Now to Mandela. The Mandela who went to prison in 1964, was a typical liberator of the 1960s. That Mandela wasn't a great man. Even Desmond Tutu once said, he needed some time in prison to mellow out. However, while he was in prison, he became the symbol of the liberation movement (partly due to the actions of Anti-Apartheid movements in the West). Prior to and upon his release, he was entrusted with great responsibility to lead South Africa to democracy. Where his greatness comes, was his ability to do that.
The Mandela, who left prison, was a great leader. He showed forgiveness and humility, he showed strength of leadership, and he was an excellent politician, and unlike many African leaders, he was willing to step down after his term. |
Good post but what was so wrong with a man who wanted to liberate a nation where he and most of the native population were legally second class citizens? I'm failing to see how that is a bad thing?
It seems okay for American whites in the 1700 to want to violently liberate themselves with FAR, FAR less reasons than the South African blacks. American colonists were doing very well and pretty much left alone. Tutu a good man in his own right was part of the clergy and protected to a large extent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
To address the Detroit comments, Boston has never had a black mayor and still has a crime rate far exceeding the national average http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Boston-Massachusetts.html
What is amazing is we have people advocating that the races be separated in America because we just can't along and at the same time saying areas with black populations are better off run by whites...lol...you can't make it up. Talk about wanting your cake and eat it too. So, America is a problem with races so we should all go to our separate corners but Africa, specifically SA and Jamaica and other places with Blacks are better off with Whites...lol. [scratches his head]
We are under the false notion that Africa were suffering until Europeans came to save them. There were great empires in their history (Mali Empire and others).
I would suggest they were better off without Europeans going there in the first place. Isn't self determination a cornerstone of western ideology? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| 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. |
An estimated 1/3 of American colonials wanted British rule as well. So? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Its not automatically a negative as we have global empires that could NOT have been great without diversity (Roman Empire, U.S.A.) |
The Romans used their military might to conquer other tribes and peoples in Europe. These people were subjugated, enslaved, or forced to adopt the Roman way of life. It's absurd to say that it was the Roman empire's 'diversity' that made them great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
What is amazing is we have people advocating that the races be separated in America because we just can't along and at the same time saying areas with black populations are better off run by whites...lol...you can't make it up. Talk about wanting your cake and eat it too. So, America is a problem with races so we should all go to our separate corners but Africa, specifically SA and Jamaica and other places with Blacks are better off with Whites...lol. [scratches his head]
We are under the false notion that Africa were suffering until Europeans came to save them. There were great empires in their history (Mali Empire and others).
I would suggest they were better off without Europeans going there in the first place. Isn't self determination a cornerstone of western ideology? |
Too many people still believe in "white man's burden". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Popocatepetl
Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Winter in Korea: One Perfect day after another
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Isn't self determination a cornerstone of western ideology? |
Self determination depends on freedom and having choices.
In many post colonial regimes the ordinary people have suffered a reduction in their options for self-determination due to poverty and oppressive rule. |
|
| 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
