How do they explain western dominance in other world regions?

[Imran Siddiqui]

and there wasnt a corelation of english and french philosophers which gave it birth.

Of course there was. The writings of Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc all were joined together to give birth to the first liberal democracy, the US.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it did and of course it did.

it existed in forms before you "Developped it" lol

Still have the basic tenants of liberal democracy.

and youre still only thinking in one dimensional theoretic way, like there is one liberal democracy. like spain's franco decades long reign or ukraines orthodox-communist patronalistic political system or i presume that's simply embarassing exceptions

Yes, Japan. Western Civilization is obviously spreading so more and more countries are embracing more liberal democratic reforms.

emposed by SOME of victors of WW2 is not the same as tranfusing "western civ" which doesnt even exist.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course there was. The writings of Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc all were joined together to give birth to the first liberal democracy, the US.

what kind of weed are you smoking? is that what they teach you in the US? all of what you label "liberal democracy" has been achieved in many countries and with many completely different ways which resulted in thoroughly different political and societal outcomes. whereas in other parts of the "west" they werent even invented but transfused in the same way they were outside the "west"
and of course it didnt start OR finish with volrtaire or lock or rousseau which were based on teachings that spanned continents as well and had also found practical applications outside "the west" too

[Bereta_Eder]

meanwhile inside your one dimensional (and non existant) "west" thoroughly different political discoveries were taking place which had nothing in common with the "true western" type of political developments which you claim as unified and wholesome and homogemious in its final experimental results.

[VetLegion]

Imran, in order to beat paiktis at this, you too have to abolish all efforts at logic and reason. Forget what you know because knowledge keeps you down. Rise above meaning man, and let the nonsense flow

[Bereta_Eder]

there's simply no way in proving a "Western civ" the differences, the journeys etc are too different and widely more far reaching. i can see you might need it in the US but that only makes it funny

[Imran Siddiqui]

it existed in forms before you "Developped it" lol

Forms of A are not the same as A. Of course you wouldn't know that .

like spain's franco decades long reign or ukraines orthodox-communist patronalistic political system or i presume that's simply embarassing exceptions

Who ever said that a civilization had to have the EXACT same advances? So when Athens did something (such as their demo-cracy) and Sparta didn't, did that mean that there was no Hellenic culture?

emposed by SOME of victors of WW2 is not the same as tranfusing "western civ" which doesnt even exist.

Japan could have shed it aside if it wanted. If you want talk about imposing values, then why do areas like the ME not have liberal democracy, but places like India do?

all of what you label "liberal democracy" has been achieved in many countries and with many completely different ways which resulted in thoroughly different political and societal outcomes.

Name one. Liberal Democracy was created in the west, spread first through the west and then spread by the west. No other country outside of the west generated it itself.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Forms of A are not the same as A. Of course you wouldn't know that .

There isn't one A

Who ever said that a civilization had to have the EXACT same advances? So when Athens did something (such as their demo-cracy) and Sparta didn't, did that mean that there was no Hellenic culture?

Yes if you define hellenic culture by the application of democracy. greeks didnt even have a national identity untill the persian wars and even after only a very shaky. kind of like your "Western civ" huh? only that besides a common enemy greeks spoke the same language and considered everyone else as a barbarian. thats about it.

Japan could have shed it aside if it wanted. If you want talk about imposing values, then why do areas like the ME not have liberal democracy, but places like India do?

No it couldnt. and imposing is NEVER the same as embracing.

the ME is a pawn of many different powers, it didnt have the political autonomy for independent political developments as india had.

Name one. Liberal Democracy was created in the west, spread first through the west and then spread by the west. No other country outside of the west generated it itself.

there are many kinds of liberal democracies, and none of them was developed in the "west" since such a thing simply doesnt exist as a unity. many arabic chalifates, or even armenia had similar systems long before rousseau was born.

[Bereta_Eder]

have you ever heard of the extra institutional factors of social consent? do you know what they are or that they co-0exist with what you label (and doesn exist) as "one" liberal democracy? they produce a vastly wide margin of different applications to the point of annulling said political system or at least change its character dramatically. to the point that it can be paraleled to other political systems without the same name. and all this happens in your (non existance" "west"
you obivously know only one thing and that's the US. that's a nothing compaired to the rest of the world and how it operates. you ar stuck in labels that are far too restrictive to even approach reality

[Bereta_Eder]

and of course all those different socioipolitical results are the outcome of hugely different historical journeys and experiences within and outside of your "west" to the point that they annule its uniquness or unity. (which as said was only a funny stunt after the cold war)

[debeest]

Boy, you guys need to let go of the argument about whether or not there's such a thing as Western Civilization.

I still say that the themes explored in Guns, Germs, and Steel are the predominant factors. Of course the book doesn't explain everything. It deals with the grand sweep of human "history" -- the last 11,000 years or so. Effectively its explanations culminate in the ability of European invaders to conquer the flourishing civilizations of the New World. Its inability to explain more recent times in greater detail is my greatest dissatisfaction with it, but it would be unrealistic to expect further explanation over the past few hundred years, which are a small fraction of human "history" riding on top of the iceberg momentum of the previous 10,000 years.

European-descended populations may now control the world, but you'd better be ready to argue with the rather numerous and powerful Chinese about that. If so, it's primarily because, at the point in history when guns and steel and navigational skills and governmental characteristics had been invented (in many parts of the world), Europeans were in the best geographic location to take advantage of them by pillaging an entire two continents which were effectively unused (because only recently populated), and were effectively depopulated by accident by European germs.

As any good scientist knows, no great discovery is made without "standing on the shoulders of giants." The list of great accomplishments starts long before Western Civilization (real or imagined) existed. All of the accomplishments which are claimed for Western Civilization in this thread share one common trait: they're MODERN. The MODERN achievements tend to be concentrated,or at least claimed, more in "Western civilization" precisely because the MODERN world is dominated by those of European descent. At other times in world history, other cultures dominated and could just as easily have asked "why do all the great things come from our civilization?" In another 500 years, if human civilization still exists, someone somewhere, quite possibly from a dominant civilization NOT descended from Europeans, will probably ask the same kind of question.

[Dr Strangelove]

The reason that China failed to become the dominant culture of the last half of the last millenium is simply that their culture developed an attitude of disdain for progress, trade and other cultures. This attitude was a product of Confucian philosophy, primarily stemming from a love of rigid order. This same philosophy by the second millenium also eschewed the martial virtues. The resulting decline in Chinese military prowess led to China being ruled by dynasties of foreign origin during the last 800 years of the empire.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

there is no such thing as liberal democracy being born out of the body of a unified single "western civ".

Yes there is. After the US developed it from ideas from French and English philosophers, it spread to the continent.

Imran, he's either trolling or has a very, very narrow definition of the term "western civ." Hope you're having fun jumping through Paiktis' hoops.

[CerberusIV]

Western Civilisation - a loose term to describe a group of nation states, later expanded in number by the independence and growth of former colonies, characterised by the cross fertilisation of ideas, particularly in the fields of scientific research, finance, industrialisation and political thought, from the late 16th century onwards. Marked by the rise to global domination of the "member" states concurrent with the political and military stagnation of other competing powers, until the losers began to adopt "western" ideas and practices during the 20th century.

Now often denigrated as a concept or identity by writers (and Apolyton posters) whose national and cultural identities were occupied and/or sidelined by the rise of the European and American industrial powers.

Simple enough for you?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by debeest
European-descended populations may now control the world, but you'd better be ready to argue with the rather numerous and powerful Chinese about that.

Chinese? They are busy westernizing themselves at moment. How much of traditional Chinese culture is still alive in China? How about its government form, its people's moral code, its people's education, its people's dress, its religion, its societal structure, its family structure, and its art? When China rises again, which I'm quite sure about, it won't be the China that you know from the history, but a China that has throughly accepted Western values and ways.

As any good scientist knows, no great discovery is made without "standing on the shoulders of giants." The list of great accomplishments starts long before Western Civilization (real or imagined) existed.

The number of Western scientific accomplishments are many times of all previous accomplishments combined.

All of the accomplishments which are claimed for Western Civilization in this thread share one common trait: they're MODERN. The MODERN achievements tend to be concentrated,or at least claimed, more in "Western civilization" precisely because the MODERN world is dominated by those of European descent. At other times in world history, other cultures dominated and could just as easily have asked "why do all the great things come from our civilization?" In another 500 years, if human civilization still exists, someone somewhere, quite possibly from a dominant civilization NOT descended from Europeans, will probably ask the same kind of question.

The difference is that the accomplishments of last 200 years were magnitudes higher than the previous 5800 years combined.

It never ceases to amaze what a bunch of self-loathing/self-depreciating masochists these Euros/Lefties are.