Yep. Face straight as can be. We can certainly extrapolate to the Aztecs based on what we see everywhere with limited European or Chinese intrusion - and that is people living as they have for thousands of years; in many cases even at stone age levels. Look at Africa. It's a disaster.
After how many centuries of invasion by Europeans? If you can live a good life and flourish with a stone axe why the hell do you need a smart TV? The presumption of progress is that things are evidence of improvement. Really? Gatling guns and Napalm. Quality of life is always different from standard of living - and we prefer the latter and impose the confusion that it is equal to the former on everyone else - whether they like it or not.
And we can't extrapolate based on similar instances when it comes to history. Every instance is different and dynamic. Would we have predicted the domination of Britain based on knowing only the Roman invasion? No, because what led to England's improbable rise was the result of complex factors. Had Spain not invaded Mexico the USA would not be what it is - and so on.
The world of men is messy and cruel in one form or another, everywhere. Yet the trend of western civ has been positive. You're criticizing select aspects of the journey and learning that have gotten us to where we are; which is the best humanity has ever been. This is all emotional arguments on your part. I am being practical. You are out-voted. People from all over the world seek what we have and we don't seek to be like them.
I completely agree with you that the trend of western civilisation has been positive - but it always been a struggle against internal opposition to counter that growth. Its like then good guys won 101 to 95 - a sufficient but not a great margin.
These are not "emotional arguments on my part". They are based on getting on for half a century of inquiry. Your practicality is pragmatism.I get that.Its attractive. It has utility. It has popular merit.
I am not out voted. Human beings are not stupid. They go for what requires least energy for the most return. Wild animals do the same. But here's the rub. Australian Aboriginal people elected to use Toyotas and rifles to hunt kangaroos - least energy expenditure for maximum return. That works until they need bullets, petrol and spare parts. At that point there is a choice - retain real freedom and go back to hunting skills or become captured by the 'system' and do what is necessary to keep the dependent technologies running. A free man has no dependencies that render him subject to others and submissive to their demands. A man with a boomerang is free. A man with a rifle is not.
Plato writes of the advice from the Egyptians foretelling of future catastrophes. The sophisticated people in the seaside cities will perish and it is the rude unlettered people in the hills who will survive. If you look at Graham Hancock's work you will see compelling argument for several catastrophic events that devastated 'civilisation' (recorded in the 'myths; of archaic peoples).
People from all over the world seek what we have and we don't seek to be like them. No, not true. Of course many seek to be like us if they come from broken disrupted cultures (which is nearly all of them). Sure, not many of us seek to learn from sustainable life ways - but some do. And not everyone wants to be like us - just most. There is actually a lot of research into traditional life ways that help us understand that our "practical" way of being is actually quite dangerous to us and others. So, to be fair, its a two way street with a minority going one way and a majority, not everyone, going the other.
A couple of points.
1. You are doing something that I see liberals everywhere doing and it's really mean spirited - and that is condemning what we are now because of some perceived past sin (for example, slavery, brutal conditions in the industrial revolution period). Is that how you treat individual people? If they are fairly decent today and have been trending that way for years and doing good things for others you condemn them because of something they did in the distant past when they were still young? Or do you forgive and move on?
Eric these are not past sins. They continue in lour communities and we export them to 'developing countries'. In the USA you guys can't even agree on a minimum wage, and you have business operators who employ undocumented 'migrants' because they pay wages so low that not even the unemployed white folk will cop that. Read Deer Hunting With Jesus, America the Farewell Tour and a bunch of other books written by Republicans, plus the actual history of the labour relations in US economic development over, lets say 1850 to 1950. I don't mean partisan political spin but actual bipartisan agreed history.
Who forgives and moves on? You who have benefited from all that has happened? Me who has moved from working class poverty to comparatively comfortable middle class? I have Masters and Masters Honours degrees and I earn over AUD $120,000 a year. That's around USD$81,500. Its not fabulous but it is liveable. I am not bitter or resentful.
It seems to me that you are asking the winners to forgive the losers. I have spent my working life mostly in public service - so I have a perspective on public policy I do not expect you to share. I am prepared to hear your POV and explore it because I know you come from a different background. You up for a reciprocation?
2. This is why you don't undermine our culture. Yes, we could revert any time. It's our cultural and civic institutions that largely prevent that from happening. Liberals attack those institutions. They want to burn it all down because of past sins and rebuild a glorious utopia in earth. Dangerous!
It's our cultural and civic institutions that largely prevent that from happening: I agree with this statement because you have included the qualifier "largely". But we have to acknowledge that these days they are under threat from internal and external threat as the means to manipulate opinion become more an more sophisticated. How long that belief can be sustained without radical reconnection is problematic. This is the opinion of counter espionage and security experts globally.
Liberals attack those institutions. Some do. Others will justly challenge presumptions and habits of thought. Remember that 'conservatives' (that's the opposite in my language) act to preserve structures and traditions that protect established ruling classes. In Europe that means the traditional social elite as well as the wealthy who want to stay on top (understandably). The USA runs, in my view, a faux European class structure. You guys get more excited about the British royals than we do.,Its a big yawn to us while the US is wetting its knickers over royal wedding.
These institutions are not sacred establishments. They must be challenged as a natural part of a healthy social evolution. I am surprised you don't see this as a fundamental 1st amendment right. I have to be blunt and say that those who object to being challenged (attacked if you like) tend to be those who don't have a justification (defence).
They want to burn it all down because of past sins and rebuild a glorious utopia in earth Not at all. If our daughter was raped and became pregnant and had the child, would you hate the child because she was conceived in a criminal act? Would you acknowledge the crime and love the child? Would you love the child and pretend the crime did not happen?
A spiritually mature culture owns then crimes and sins that made it was it is - in part. That is what is being asked. I agree that there are those who call themselves progressive who want to roll over and let chaos happen because of their conception of past crimes. They are idiots and I have no regard for their POV.
But I think an essential part of our spiritual evolution is that we own our past, and acknowledge those injured in our triumph. Let me explain it this way. Australia was founded upon an explicit breech of law. The judgement may have been an error, but it led to a crime in our law. We have benefited from that crime, and in so doing we have behaved in cruel and unjust ways. And we have added arrogance and stupidity to the mix.
There is no way we are going up sticks and go back to where we came from. That's not going to happen. So how do we sort our relations with the indigenous people and the land in a spiritually mature way? If we dare, owning the past wrongs we benefit from can be positively transformative to us as individuals and to our community. We can be spiritually grown up, adult - and become stronger and better people.
I am no fan any political class, not here or the UK or the USA. In fact Australian politics so sickens me to despair at the venal stupidity of our elected representatives I have had to make a choice for my personal wellbeing. I have been a political junkie for a long time and I love the deep complexity needed to understand how it all works. Local politics was doing my blood pressure no good at all. Now I indulge my passion for politics by observing US politics. I have read maybe 26 books on US politics and culture so far this year.
Here's my point. In the US there is no simple binary that divides progressives and conservatives. Yes progressives are often complete dicks talking total rubbish. But the same applies to their political polar opposites. If you give a damn what what is true and real its the dialogue in the middle that should attract you. Its the debates between the just over the line progressives and the just over the line conservatives that are most informative - because these are debates between people who actually do know what the hell they are talking about. For that reason they are the least influential debates on the public stage - because mostly nobody really gives damn about what is true and real - just what gets them energised.
Humans are innately conservative. They prefer the status quo. You should take demands for change seriously. They always come from real grievances which are invariably distorted and misrepresented by opposing parties. I am not a fan of white supremacists, but because I know they have a real grievance I make the effort to understand it. The fact that they can articulate a grievance does not mean they can explain it or prescribe a remedy - but they try that, as we all do. And the rest of us think that because we think the remedy is crap the grievance must be crap too. That's a dumb mistake our media and politicians make as if doing so is part of their job description.