Tweet
"Do you know what price our own societies paid to get to the living standard you enjoy today?"
Yes of course, but what I'm arguing is that poor working conditions and suffering is not essential to the industrialisation of a nation. While it may get it done faster, trampling on human rights is hardly a good way to go about it. It is not an either/or situation here.
Besides, why do we assume that they need to be or should be industrialised? Surely that is up to that culture to decide. Indeed, other cultures were getting on fine until we poked our noses in, imposing our values onto them. They work and are moral for us, but it is provincialist to assume that they will work for others. Provincialism seems to be a bit of a problem with the West at the moment.
" He wrote most of his Capital in England, along with his buddy Engels"
Communism (not Stalinism): One of Britains finest exports
jk
"Show me a country's culture that has been annihilated"
Niger, Chad (to an extent), Buekino Faso, Sierra Lionne, Australia, America (the native Americans), etc etc. The cultures in some cases to exist to a tiny degree, like with native america, but they are not a credible cultural force, and destined to die out after a while as the populations dwindle, and the cultural values become less relevant in the face of a much more powerful culture.
" First of all, those conditions that you describe are the absolute extreme worst, and are not representative of general conditions in those factories. Also keep in mind that most of these people took these jobs themselves. This implies that their only alternatives (e.g. - starving in overworked farmlands; toiling away in coal mines; picking used batteries at city dumps) are quite a lot worse."
"Work for us or your children die" is hardly a good basis for recruiting and keeping workers, nor is it a particularly humane way of dealing with humans who dont happen to have financial power. They are still human, and human resources are human first, resources second.
"And you say that "the nation would be better off" without foreign investment?"
No, they would have been better off if we didnt stick our noses in in the first place. Now, we cant turn back the clock, so we should make the best of a bad situation and improve these peoples worker rights.
"The problem here lies in definition. What is "augmentation" and what is "annihilation"? When the West picked up paper, the compass, and gunpowder from the Chinese, and astronomy, navigation and mathematics from the Arabs, was Western culture "annihilated" and replaced by a Sino-Arabic hybrid, or was it "augmented"?"
Not at all, elements of Western culture changed, adapted to augment these new ideas. When an entire culture is exchanged with another, like for example, the Native American example or several cases in Africa, then that is erring to annihilation. It is true that a culture cannot be immediately annihilated, but in 200 years time, I doubt Native American culture will be existing.
"One more thing about culture: a culture that disregards the value of education is doomed to fail. Qualified people are the most important asset to any prosperous and strong societies. People with knowledge are most likely to make the best decisions for their lifes, their families, and their communities. Lack of education breeds ignorance, and ignorance can often lead to hate and extremism"
True to an extent, but does education have to mean schools, and western wisdom? One can be perfectly educated in the ways of ones own culture. Nonetheless, whether a culture can survive or not without education, or whether it can have a good economy, or whether it has certain other factors that make it "good" in the eyes of the West, does not make their culture any more subjective, and ours any more objective over theirs. We are simply in a case of two equally valid cultures.
Yes of course, but what I'm arguing is that poor working conditions and suffering is not essential to the industrialisation of a nation. While it may get it done faster, trampling on human rights is hardly a good way to go about it. It is not an either/or situation here.
Besides, why do we assume that they need to be or should be industrialised? Surely that is up to that culture to decide. Indeed, other cultures were getting on fine until we poked our noses in, imposing our values onto them. They work and are moral for us, but it is provincialist to assume that they will work for others. Provincialism seems to be a bit of a problem with the West at the moment.
" He wrote most of his Capital in England, along with his buddy Engels"
Communism (not Stalinism): One of Britains finest exports
jk"Show me a country's culture that has been annihilated"
Niger, Chad (to an extent), Buekino Faso, Sierra Lionne, Australia, America (the native Americans), etc etc. The cultures in some cases to exist to a tiny degree, like with native america, but they are not a credible cultural force, and destined to die out after a while as the populations dwindle, and the cultural values become less relevant in the face of a much more powerful culture.
" First of all, those conditions that you describe are the absolute extreme worst, and are not representative of general conditions in those factories. Also keep in mind that most of these people took these jobs themselves. This implies that their only alternatives (e.g. - starving in overworked farmlands; toiling away in coal mines; picking used batteries at city dumps) are quite a lot worse."
"Work for us or your children die" is hardly a good basis for recruiting and keeping workers, nor is it a particularly humane way of dealing with humans who dont happen to have financial power. They are still human, and human resources are human first, resources second.
"And you say that "the nation would be better off" without foreign investment?"
No, they would have been better off if we didnt stick our noses in in the first place. Now, we cant turn back the clock, so we should make the best of a bad situation and improve these peoples worker rights.
"The problem here lies in definition. What is "augmentation" and what is "annihilation"? When the West picked up paper, the compass, and gunpowder from the Chinese, and astronomy, navigation and mathematics from the Arabs, was Western culture "annihilated" and replaced by a Sino-Arabic hybrid, or was it "augmented"?"
Not at all, elements of Western culture changed, adapted to augment these new ideas. When an entire culture is exchanged with another, like for example, the Native American example or several cases in Africa, then that is erring to annihilation. It is true that a culture cannot be immediately annihilated, but in 200 years time, I doubt Native American culture will be existing.
"One more thing about culture: a culture that disregards the value of education is doomed to fail. Qualified people are the most important asset to any prosperous and strong societies. People with knowledge are most likely to make the best decisions for their lifes, their families, and their communities. Lack of education breeds ignorance, and ignorance can often lead to hate and extremism"
True to an extent, but does education have to mean schools, and western wisdom? One can be perfectly educated in the ways of ones own culture. Nonetheless, whether a culture can survive or not without education, or whether it can have a good economy, or whether it has certain other factors that make it "good" in the eyes of the West, does not make their culture any more subjective, and ours any more objective over theirs. We are simply in a case of two equally valid cultures.
Comment