Bullshit. There was no three generations of wealth and peace in the origin of most of that stuff - and whatever productivity the West got from its wealthy and ruling class is to its credit, eh? Getting an actual contribution to society out of its rich is one of the aspects of Western culture most worth considering. And most of the wealth of the West is generated within the West - the robbing of the world is doubly tragic and evil from its lack of necessity, its damage to the West, even. If you look at the wealth of the West by country, it is distributed in almost reverse order to the undertaking of planetary robbery and genocide.
All those things came about from misbegotten wealth. All of which orginated from colonisation. How did the west make its wealth, do you think? Do you know how many people died to service the cotton gins of England? The local Indian cottage industry was destroyed as the British took the cotton from Indian farmers, exported it to Manchestor and then sold their cloth to the rich nawabs at rates which the average Indian could not afford. The systematic plunder led to famine as farms were turned to cotton production to service British industries while the food produced fed their soldiers as they ruled over Indians with militant violence.
Prior civilizations weren't as bloodthirsty or ambitious as western civilization? Please. Savagery and ambition are hardly unique western traits. It was science, capitalism, and democracy that allowed the west to flourish.
Sure, our relatively advanced science and technology made that easier. But people have been wiping each other out since Cro magnum man wiped out the Neanderthals. That is not unique to the West. But the scientific method is. Capitalism is. Democracy is. Especially all three together in an open society that prizes innovation.
Neither the scientific method nor capitalism nor democracy is a western ideology. They simply don't cite their sources as everyone else does. Read some history
Most of it by internal trade and innovation, financial and otherwise. The elimination of the natives was unnecessary, mostly irrelevant, to the wealth of the West. In the Americas it was even largely accidental. Eliminating the natives only yields the gain of robbing them - best to pick rich natives, as the Mongols did, if that's the plan. They are all attributes, characteristic ones, of Western culture as identified by you.
lol. The money came from occupying foreign land and plundering native resources while selling the natives Here is a small sample: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-culture/189616-india-milch-cow-empire.html
Some of it. Not the most of it. And the plundering was not necessary - greater fortunes were available by trade, as was shown later even by the English - and as your example indicates, with robbery accomplishing the feat of killing the golden goose. The Spanish were even clearer victims of their own greed.
Well, as I recall, capitalism goes back to Adam Smith. The scientific method had its roots in ancient greece, as did Democracy. Of course, if you can come up with some earlier examples, it doesn't alter my point which you are dodging. The West embraced the scientific method, democracy, and capitalism as no one else did. This is our defining characteristic, not the fact that we killed people we didn't like. Every group of humans since the dawn of time has done that.
Yeah it was the East India Trading Co, that managed the occupation of India and converted it from a rich thriving economic giant with 20% of the worlds GDP to a miserable colonial outpost with less than 4% of it, much of it from "capitalist ventures" which led to continuous famine, labour exploitation, indentured Indian slaves for foreign plantations in other places [Sea of Poppies by Amitav Ghosh gives a poignant account of how the opium trade financed the empire from India, to fuel the engine of the industrial revolution] hunger, poverty and over 80% of illiteracy with exceedingly high infant mortality rates. Yup we sure saw a lot of trade in India for 200 years.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The foolishness of such evil is found in its reduced profits - where the British traded, they acquired more wealth. Regardless of how badly the British treated India, the wealth of the West was not all - or even most - founded on such economic malpractice.
Don't worry, the funny thing about the world is that its round and what goes around, comes around. What the west never anticipated when they plundered the east, is that labour economics has a trickle down effect and albeit slowly cheap labour economies in the east keep trickling, trickling, trickling till their own labour economies become too costly to maintain and eventually fall apart, . Europe is literally, the creation of the blood, sweat and tears of what became under colonialism, the Third world [or what I like to call the transition from bread basket to basket case]. We'll be kinder to you, than you were to us. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You will be Western, by then. Possibly via the Chinese - they say that language is easier to learn than English, anyway. And you will find that as America came too late for the labor plundering different and less brutal plunders were the folly subs for trade; as you become Westernized, America might be a good model - unless, as noted, China seems more compatible
America merely upgraded the model from colonial plunder to corporate plunder. Except for all the resources it took from the native Americans. You're not usually so clueless so it must be a blind spot. Africa has become worse under American colonialism as has the Middle East and Latin America. Just read some of the writings of Arab scholars before the advent of the US into their lives. I think we should follow the Ottoman model, which is also the Indian model. Regional self sufficiency through millets or panchayat is a better model than rape and run. I also think we should reinstate the Ottoman reform which did not recognise ethnicity or citizenship. India is a good country to institute such reforms, we recognise diversity better than most people inspite of our prejudices. Our lack of vindictiveness as a nation is our strongest attribute.
Or, as I put it, without the "merely": meanwhile: Not colonialism - we upgraded, remember? Not much there - Some copper, the oyster fishery off New York. The remnants of the Mississippi cultures were not even farming much, by the time the white wave hit. Overwhelming via settling is not colonialism - it's immigration. Don't call the regions "States", though - it would look too much like the enemy. Good thing you evicted the Pakistanis, to acquire that virtue.
This topic should have finished in the first page but instead this childish rhetoric still continues...
Yeah and their idea of democracy, like the Americans, did not include slaves and women. The Americans still don't recognise a vast swathe of the Third world as human and prefer to keep them under dictators to plunder their resources - outsourced colonialism, with the privy purse princes replaced by kings and dictators.
Off topic thought: if a poster includes the emotive adjective childish in a description of the postings of others are they trolling or seeking to perform a public service?
