"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

[vortexring 0]

What a rather thought provoking quote.

Would non-western cultures have done the same to us had they the superiority?

Does this make us the bad guys or good guys?

Look at the many issues around the world today caused by the UK! Iraqi borders and the ethnic mix inside of them. The partition of India too. Pakistan. The natural division of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan this border created!

Are we now trying to atone for our past errors by the reapplication of force?

Does anyone know WTF is going on?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[billvon 2,473]

>Does this make us the bad guys or good guys?

Depends which side you look at it from.

>Does anyone know WTF is going on?

The strong are projecting their power on the weak; it happens with great regularity.

[vortexring 0]

Therefore, to stop or reduce international violence, the strong should stop doing so.

The weak will then be happy, and soon no longer weak, and we'll all enjoy equality?

Or will the weak then become strong and project themselves onto the ex-strong?

So in essence, we're carrying out pre-emptive strikes?

"If we let you become strong like us, you'll only try and be stronger and do the same to us!"

Nuts.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[willard 0]

Interesting quote. Who is it attributed to?
Though the reasoning sounds solid, I have to disagree with this person. The West has not won the world. The West, as it were, controls a small portion of the civilized world. A VERY small portion when compared to Eastern culture. But I do agree that we are very proficient at the application of organized violence.

[billvon 2,473]

>If we let you become strong like us, you'll only try and be stronger and do the same to us!

History has shown that no one needs to "let" anyone become stronger. The strong fall and the weak become strong all on their own. Look at the world in 1780 - the US was a joke in terms of global power; the British Empie ruled the world. Before that we had the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire did not "let" England become strong, and the Brits did not "let" the US become strong. Indeed, they fought our independence tooth and nail.

So a better question might be - how can we set up a world that we want to live in when China is the strongest nation on earth? When that day comes, I hope the paradigm of pre-emptive invasion isn't as prevalent as it is now.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Would non-western cultures have done the same to us had they the superiority?

Yes maybe a bit worst maybe a bit better.

Quote

Does this make us the bad guys or good guys?

No
It makes us the Alpha

Quote

Does anyone know WTF is going on?

We live in a country where Money is respected more then most things. The rich company and special interest money shapes or at least effects the decision making of our president (all of them not just GWB).
We make our decisions based on what is good for our countries economy, and often use our safety, fear, and the ignorance of are citizens to achieve our goals and get their support.

What I find amusing is when people insist that we are doing the “right thing” that we have honor or we give two fucks about anyone else but our selves. We don’t.

Very few leaders have done the “right thing” and often in history when they have done the right thing it has just happened that the right thing for their nation happened to be the right thing to do as well.


We are not the good guys we are the guys with a system that makes life enjoyable for the strong and people who are willing to work. Because we offer such a great life people usually in the higher educated, or in the higher financial bracket tend to gravitate towards America therefore making our society stronger.

I believe there will be a day when humans will be able to have all that is materialistic things they want. Unlimited energy, homes for everyone and everyone’s basic needs would be met. Then I think we can begin to get away from our animalistic ways and actually evolve to people who value spirituality.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[vortexring 0]

A Samuel P. Huntington.

You can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

Like yourself, I don't entirely agree with him either, but his statement did catch my thoughts.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Should we even bother trying to set up a world for when China is the strongest nation on earth, as you suggested?

Chances are, they'll only manipulate it to their way of liking, and naturally, against how 'we' might like it to be.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[billvon 2,473]

> Should we even bother trying to set up a world for when China
>is the strongest nation on earth, as you suggested?

Should we plan for the future? Yes.

China will likely do whatever they like. But "whatever they like" will be shaped by people who are growing up today. And if, throughout the world, they see the strong countries invading the weak and imposing their system of government upon the people there - they will be more likely to not have a problem doing that themselves. If they see the strong countries coexisting with smaller countries - even if they don't like the smaller countries or are afraid of them - their consciences may twinge a little more when they consider "liberating" Hawaii from the "American imperium."

[vortexring 0]

"I believe there will be a day when humans will be able to have all that is materialistic things they want. Unlimited energy, homes for everyone and everyone’s basic needs would be met. Then I think we can begin to get away from our animalistic ways and actually evolve to people who value spirituality."


I'd love that - I think we all would. But why do I think we'll be too busy trying to accumulate wealth and power to such an extent, the spiritual element will be disregarded?

That's the road we're on now - and I don't see many junctions or forks ahead.....

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

This is one of those quotes that sounds very profound, but is not entirely true when you examine it closely.

The West did not "win the world" whatever that means.

Some of its ideas and values were in fact very valuable to the world as a whole. So we can conclude that some of its ideas and values were superior to ones that came before.

As to "superiority in applying organized violence" well, that means they developed powerful military forces. That's what happens when you develop a culture that has ideas and values that promote prosperity, industry, and the rapid advancement of technology. You apply some of that power to your military forces just as you apply it to other areas. The superior military might was a by-product of everything else that Western society produced.


The quote seems to imply that the West was simply more evil & violent than everyone else, and that's why they "won the world." A politically-fashionable belief in some circles, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Butters 0]

Explain why other nations with the superior ability in applying organized violence didn't win the world. This may be a factor but it is not the factor ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[vortexring 0]

Eh?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Butters 0]

Quote

Eh?

Sorry. Wasn't asking you in particular to explain. Was asking anyone that believes this to explain.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[vortexring 0]

I get the impression, having now read a little about the man, his quote isn't so much implying the west being more evil and violent than everybody else, but more along the lines of:

"In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous...Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism."

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[pirana 0]

Quote

Interesting quote. Who is it attributed to?
Though the reasoning sounds solid, I have to disagree with this person. The West has not won the world. The West, as it were, controls a small portion of the civilized world. A VERY small portion when compared to Eastern culture. But I do agree that we are very proficient at the application of organized violence.

Depends on what you mean by control.

Do we occupy it physically? Not so much.

Do we force our will thru economic domination? Absolutely yes.

As to the issue in question: The dominant power(s) in world history have without exception abused that power. I think it is inherent of our species to do that; remnants from when survival meant making cruel heartless selfish decisions. We appear to be at a point in our history where survival no longer requires quite so selfish behavior, and compassion could be as strong a driver of behaviors as survival. But we are having difficulty with the transition. Either that or we with the wisdom to see this just need to be patient and wait for the rest of the barbarians to intellectually evolve.

Yes, I am full of myself.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[SpeedRacer 1]

certainly I agree that western values shouldn't be violently imposed on other countries.

but the quote said we "won the world" by violence, not by superior ideas.

Go anywhere in the world and you will find people using technology and culture and products invented and/or produced by westerners. To say that the west achieved its prosperity by applying violence is not entirely true. At least some of our peaceful ideas & values were superior to what came before, otherwise we'd have had nothing to offer the world.

His quote implies that all our wealth came from simply invading other countries & taking everything by force.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JohnRich 4]

Before "the West" even existed, there were plenty of Eastern, Middle-Eastern, and European powers doing the same thing. So I don't know why you single out the "West" for this quote. The West is not unique in this trait.

[vortexring 0]

I don't think you are - that's exactly what's wrong - lack of moral obligation!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Well, what is your concept of the 'West' John? The Wild West? California?

In my concept, Europe fits firmly into this bracket: (West).

It should be quite apparant why I've singled the West out, as you are already aware. Why not contribute to the topic, rather than continually being deliberately obtuse.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[billvon 2,473]

> Explain why other nations with the superior ability in applying organized violence didn't win the world.

Because there was another nation with even more superior ability.

To put it another way - had the germans gotten their nuclear weapons working, and had they completed their work at Peenemunde, they would likely have won. Not because their philosophy was better, or because they were moral, but because they would have destroyed us.

[Butters 0]

Quote

> Explain why other nations with the superior ability in applying organized violence didn't win the world.

Because there was another nation with even more superior ability.

To put it another way - had the germans gotten their nuclear weapons working, and had they completed their work at Peenemunde, they would likely have won. Not because their philosophy was better, or because they were moral, but because they would have destroyed us.

Had the Germans gotten their nuclear weapons working ... their ideas would have been better than our ideas. My point is that ideas, values, etc... play a role.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 2,473]

>Had the Germans gotten their nuclear weapons working ... their
>ideas would have been better than our ideas.

Their ideas were at least as good as ours. Heck, we used the head of their missile program to kickstart our space program!

However, we were better than them at destroying their ability to create nuclear weapons. It takes more than good ideas - it takes a Manhattan Project to create nuclear weapons. Ours worked; theirs didn't, primarily because of our military actions (Google Norwegian heavy water sabotage.)

[Butters 0]

Quote

>Had the Germans gotten their nuclear weapons working ... their
>ideas would have been better than our ideas.

Their ideas were at least as good as ours. Heck, we used the head of their missile program to kickstart our space program!

However, we were better than them at destroying their ability to create nuclear weapons. It takes more than good ideas - it takes a Manhattan Project to create nuclear weapons. Ours worked; theirs didn't, primarily because of our military actions (Google Norwegian heavy water sabotage.)

Let me try this again. Applying organized violence does not happen by itself, it takes ideas, values, etc... You don't think the world would be a different place if the Axis values had been more widely accepted than the Allies?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 2,473]

>Applying organized violence does not happen by itself, it takes ideas, values, etc...

Agreed - but those values can be nearly anything. Militant atheism, fascism, democracy, protestantism, you name it.

>You don't think the world would be a different place if the Axis values had
>been more widely accepted than the Allies?

Of course the world would be a different place. The reason it's not is because we put forth a better military effort than they did.