Terrorists hit London -- Bombs in Underground and a Bus

[Timber Loftis]

Another decent thread moved due to my meddling, I see. *evil voice* Everything is proceeding exactly as planned. :devil:

[Morgeruat]

Didn't realize this had been moved, TL you can post my PM if you like.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Another decent thread moved due to my meddling, I see. *evil voice* Everything is proceeding exactly as planned. :devil:

lol, better moved than shut down.

{edit cause I can't spell today.}

[ 07-08-2005, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Timber Loftis]

FROM MORGIE:

Since the thread got locked, here's my reply.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Morgeruat:
OK, take a look at Russia, the worlds largest 3rd world country, explain to me how it's culture did not cause them to fall from a superpower to a 3rd world coutry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Culture... or government? And, are you pinning this on the head of Muslims?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all, Barry's comment was regarding cultural problems not being at the root of poverty, government is an inseperable part of culture in most instances, not all but most. I certainly don't blame all the worlds ills on muslims, Just as I don't blame the Nez Perce or the US cavalry for the Nez Perce War which ended with Chief Joseph's famous speach, each party had some blame, each party took things too far in response.

[ 07-08-2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: This is not a racist rant, but third world countries (including South and Central America) are third world countries because of one thing.. their culture. Their attitudes towards life, others, self and their values and ethics.

Hmmmm... was my comment unfair to Morg? I don't know about the article posted, but this comment seems to sum up his feelings on the subject, and they're not pretty.

I'm always instantly suspicious when someone starts a sentence with a variation of the old chant: "Now, I'm not a racist, but...". You can usually be assured that racism is just on its way.

[Morgeruat]

lol, actually that was from a cut and paste of another discussion on Live8, and how it wouldn't change things in Africa, I only used the parts relevant to the discussion at hand. And you ignored the points above it completely

2/3rds of the worlds poorest people live in Islamic countries. Despite their oil wealth not one of the top 30 wealthy countries are Muslim. All Arab countries combined, factoring out oil exports, produce less exports than tiny Finland. Egypt prior to the Muslim conquest was the breadbasket of Europe. Algeria before De Gaule caved into the FLN was a net exporter of food and the breadbasket of France, now it is a net importer of food.

Explain how culture doesn't factor into this?

[ 07-08-2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Errrm, I quoted that from the previous page of this thread. If it wasn't relevant then its not my fault you posted it here. If it was relevant then I really don't see your problem with me quoting it.

If there is a high incidence of Muslim countries being poor then you are right it might suggest a causal link between the two. But that doesn't mean culture causes poverty, what is much more likely is exactly the reverse. The idea that Muslim people are more predisposed to poverty is offensive and patently ridiculous. The idea that people who have nothing would seek some kind of comfort in a religion that teaches, amongst other things, a strong brand of anti-materialism is surely just common sense.

Your conclusion that poverty is caused by culture just plain isn't supported by certain cultures being dominant in poor societies. It seems infinitely more plausible that culture is caused by poverty.

[Timber Loftis]

Sounds like the nature/nurture debate.

So, does Muslinism beget tyrannical regimes or do tyrannical regimes beget Muslinism. Evidence seems to indicate the former. What would be your take on this?

[Morgeruat]

Culture and practises plays a large part, as I posted, Egypt and Algeria used to be pretty major food exporters, through poor farming practices, divine famines, or whatever else one would want to blame they are no longer. In South America the rainforests are being decimated to make way for farmland (among other reasons), because of poor farming practices in a few years the once highly fertile land will have to be abandoned and more forest will have to be cut down to make way for more farmers. What is done with the land and the $ gained from vocation helps determine poverty. For instance much of the oil wealth from Saudi goes to spreading the Wahabi brand of Islam, not to supporting Saudis, The king and his dozens of sons and nepphews and their families also live lives that would make even the most jaded hedonist cringe, When it could be spent instead on social programs to make the desert bloom (and yes the desert does turn green after the 1-2 month rainy season, I've seen it) which would in addition to the oil wealth raise the standard of living.

As Timber mentioned what people in 3rd world countries do with their money tends to affect how they live, if they blow their paycheck on hookers and booze then of course they will be poor, it's no different in 1st world countries except for a culture that teaches you to save for what you need.

The fact that muslim lands are predisposed to poverty reflects several other cultural practises, muslims do not pay taxes, except possibly in the more secular countries, instead a tax is levied against unbelievers (and in times where the kingdom was poor it would actually restrict non-muslims from converting so that they could continue to leech the jizya -infidel tax- from them). Take a further look at scientific advances within lands controlled by muslims, most of them are either stolen and/or adapted from nonmuslims living in muslim lands, which of course tapered off and disappeared within a generation or two of muslims coming into power, the fact of loss of agricultural productivity in primarily muslim lands leads to the inevitable conclusion that their culture does indeed directly cause them to be poor.

{edit} Woot I'm a eunich... er I mean Unicorn

[ 07-08-2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Lucern]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: This is not a racist rant, but third world countries (including South and Central America) are third world countries because of one thing.. their culture. Their attitudes towards life, others, self and their values and ethics.

Hmmmm... was my comment unfair to Morg? I don't know about the article posted, but this comment seems to sum up his feelings on the subject, and they're not pretty.

I'm always instantly suspicious when someone starts a sentence with a variation of the old chant: "Now, I'm not a racist, but...". You can usually be assured that racism is just on its way. [/QUOTE]It was never racist. The word is ethnocentric, and the quoted statement fits that bill. However, previous statements expressed tolerance and respect for all others, so in that context it's nothing to dwell on.

As for the argument that culture is responsible for third world poverty (specifically Middle East) I do not believe Morge has demonstrated that culture has played a role in any of that, and I believe it's impossible. He has actually cited a religion's effect on nations, but neither concept can be connected to any particular culture. The article was interesting, and I learned a thing or two about slavery. However, despite the hegemonic nature of early Islam, Islam is no more a culture than a nation-state is a culture. In fact, like any set of ideas, Islam changes as it spreads. From sychretistically fusing belief systems to differing interpretations of its doctrines, it will be as different as the people who consider themselves Muslims. Consider the regional differences of opinions on Sharia in Pakistan, the strong fundamentalist strain currently leading Iran, or the rather liberal views of some indigenous Muslim groups in Indonesia, like the Minangkabau. There, by the way, men are given over to matriarchical families by marriage, and land ownership is passed down from mother to daughter (making it a liberal interpretation of patriarchal ideas).

My point is that culture does not equate to nation or religion. There are well over 10,000 documented cultures, and how many nations? Autonomous groups of people who share the same interests can take care of themselves. In everywhere but the poles on the planet (though damn close) , people have figured out how to survive effectively, given a huge range of cultural values. What cultural system did those early anthropologists study who were sitting around starving? Some of those groups developed those habits, however, after being incorporated into a nation-state, especially third-world ones. In the world we know, political power exists, however complexly, at the nation-state level. Governing bodies are at best a compromise amongst all of those governed, and at worst a colonial relic feeding off of those governed. A key problem of nation states is that even small ones cannot hope to represent the "attitudes towards life, others, self, and their values and ethics" of all of those governed. Unless a populace is uniform, culture can never be equated to nations.

I see poverty as a net result of many factors, but broadly defined culture as a contributor I wouldn't give 1/100'th the credit as resources, urbanization, infrastructure, disease, government corruption or incompetence, literacy/education, war, environment...some of which I see as effects of poverty that compound it. Culture does not circumvent basic reasoning and learning ability, including the ability to adapt. Arguing that a religion's influence on culture is anti-intellectual or hinders a governing body's ability to tax is different than saying that a culture causes poverty, and while a potentially defensible prospect, might violate our current moratorium.

[ 07-08-2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]