Why the English-speaking countries lead the world.

[jimmoyer]

Somewhere along the noble anglo first generation's
bringing forth disease and pestilence and raping the land
and the natives, there lived a vibrant 2nd generation
that did none of those things but hard work, hard alchohol, innovative intelligence that rose above
the self-defeating tendencies of the criminals
who did all the conquering.

Other cultures never rise above the first generation's
tendencies.

 

[Machjo]

Machjo

Your post certainly got my attention because I wasn't certain what you were referring to.

I went looking - is this what you meant???

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

Yes. It was anoble Englo effort to open the Chinese market to Opium trafficking while it was prohibited in England itself! Bunch of commies! They should know better than to try to restrict the free market of opium trafficking by the British on their soil.

And then we wonder why the CCP's stance on complete sovereignty attracted teh masses. So would it be fair to say that the CCP is a product of the British?

 

[Machjo]

Machjo

Your post certainly got my attention because I wasn't certain what you were referring to.

I went looking - is this what you meant???

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

Yes. It was anoble Englo effort to open the Chinese market to Opium trafficking while it was prohibited in England itself! Bunch of commies! They should know better than to try to restrict the free market of opium trafficking by the British on their soil.

And then we wonder why the CCP's stance on complete sovereignty attracted teh masses. So would it be fair to say that the CCP is a product of the British?

I would really like to hear Blackleaf's comments on this one. He seems to have gone quiet lately :?

 

[zoofer]

<Snip - Cosmo>

 

[#juan]

This is your first and last warning zoof. Post your replies or whatever turns you on but don't keep on your current tack.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Regardless of what anyone thinks, Britain did a lot of good for the world. Britain had a large part to play in creating democracy, which so many of us love. Look at the differences between China and India, Malaysia and Indonesia. Sure it did some wrong, but it also did a lot of ood. A lot of people fail to see that.

 

[Curiosity]

The Gunslinger

I agree - England or Britain set the pattern for exploration, expansion for trade and democracy - made some errors of course as any forward thinking nation will do who advocates change rather than stagnation.

I prefer to believe England had more plusses than the minuses people are looking to bring up here.

 

[Curiosity]

Hmmmmmmmmmm I see some things haven't changed here.
:roll:

 

[jimmoyer]

Waddaya mean by dat ???

Our emotionally hard wired opinions ?

Our behavior of finding any fact to support our opinion
and disregarding or minimalizing the rest ?

Our behavior of desiring an echo of ourselves ?

Our behavior of not being able to see any value
in the opposition ?


How about I failed convincing college educated
people that the moon spins on its own axis ?

Can you imagine ?

They wanted proof !! They wanted documentation.

 

[the caracal kid]

Unfortunately, Wednesday, we really can not say since it is all proposition as to how other cultures would have progressed if the Brits had not overran them.

If you want to give credit where it is due though, you need to thank Athens for democracy, not the brits.

But when it comes to pluses vs minuses, there is one very major minus that has left the world in the mess it is now thanks to the british exansion (which is ideologically also tracable back to Greek and Roman times) and that is the idea of constant expansion vs systemic balance.

 

[jimmoyer]

Caracal Kid, you have just embarked into very dark
territory regarding the Entropic Principle, the idea
of atrophy built in the universe's genes parallel to its
other paradoxical ability to grow.

And systemic balance is an illusion.

It's more of a jerking backing and forth, so to speak.

And one of the ideas here in this thread is that
very few imperial powers left their former colonial
possessions in better shape to grow.

Britain's former possessions have far outpaced any
other European colonial possession in the world.

 

[the caracal kid]

are you a systems theorist, jim?

if you are we can get into the details of dynamic natural systems and how equalibrium is a very fragile state. Indeed, balance of human systems consists of a variance of many variables, but constant growth is not a healthy state against finite confining factors. The only natural equivilants run until they consume all support resources and die. This is not a model of a dynamic system at all. Constant growth is not a robust, but a fragle model in this context.

Again, we can only make models of what "could have been", and we will find those with a bias towards colonialism will see the effects of it as positive, while those that try to apply a more unbaised approach will produce models for and against. One must first understand one's own bias in these matters. Of course the products of it think it is good, since it was the path to them being where they are now. That does not mean is was the best path systemically though.

 

[jimmoyer]

Most indubitably true, Caracal Kid.

I liked every point you just made.

And I'm no systems theorist.

I especially like your point about understanding your
own bias first. Only then can we go to the next
step in thinking out ideas and comparing alternatives.

My bias is eclectic in that I do see more Brit colonial
possessions having done better than any other former
European colony and yet I also believe that another
model might have led those countries into another path
for better or for worse depending upon what guage
of success you use.

Tibet is a great example of a path that defied both
east and west and middle east models, except for the
imperial Chinese destruction.