The rise of a civilization?

[LightSpectra]

Oh lovely, a colonialism apologist; one that uses the word "negro" like we live in the 1880s, no less.

 

[Cynovolans]

I can't imagine any example of where the suppression of an indigenous people has left them better off - can you?

Does Japan making binding of the feet illegal in Taiwan count?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Does Japan making binding of the feet illegal in Taiwan count?

No, because it's offset by the Japanese rice procurement which lead to Starvation.

 

[innonimatu]

I repeat my point, suppression and conflict is HARD. It can lead to good things later on, but the main point is that it is necessary for change and innovation.

Change and conflict may well be necessary but, I repeat, that doesn't make them right. As for being better of in the long run, we're all dead in the long run. What matters for any individual is his own life span, and therefore "suppression" cannot ever be good for its victims.

 

[rkade8583]

Oppression CAN (and I can't stress that enough) be good for SOME people because it forces them to do great things. More great people exist because they have dealt with conflict or oppression in their own lives than not. Ever hear of the suburban author? Chapter 3: I have leaves on my lawn. I think I shall buy a leafblower.

Yes I stole it from Lewis Black but it's a valid point.

And she said negro because we didn't want to sound offensive to black people.

 

[innonimatu]

Oppression CAN (and I can't stress that enough) be good for SOME people because it forces them to do great things. More great people exist because they have dealt with conflict or oppression in their own lives than not.

That's true, but it's cherry-picking the good aspects while ignoring the bad. An example: no battle of Borodino, no "1812"... so what? Tchaikovsky would have written something else instead! From the point of view of those involved, there and then, I bet that they'd prefer that there was no invasion, war and battle, and to go on living, rather that die on that battlefield. Because for them, there was nothing else, no future! So what if some of the survivors became heroes? If it inspired people in future generations? What good is that for the dead?

The same applies to wars where one "civilization" gets conquered by another. There's winners and losers. I understand that you may be just insisting that there are positive aspects to the changes those events cause, while most people focus on the negative. And that far I agree. But never lose sight of the negative aspects also.

 

[Karalysia]

I support Glenn Becks idea to kick California out of the Union because of this thread.

 

[eoc]

I have a historical question: In your opinion, can a legitimate civilization thrive and survive without warring, oppressing, or generally being underhanded to at least one group of people/other civilization (America/UK/China for example).

I was listening to my local morning talk show and they were talking about how James Cameron hates America with his new movie and how it's saying that we're evil because we took over and oppressed and all that. I don't care about the movie but the premise interested me enough to write this up.

So what do you guys think?

It's not called civilizaiton thriving or surviving. It is called fighting for lands.

 

[LightSpectra]

That's true, but it's cherry-picking the good aspects while ignoring the bad. An example: no battle of Borodino, no "1812"... so what? Tchaikovsky would have written something else instead!

Also, remember that an author who was potentially better than Tolstoy might've died at Borodino as well. It's impossible to know whether or not we're more culturally advanced because of war.

 

[Plotinus]

This is from my crazy, Irish obsessed wife.

What about the Irish and Negros being suppressed by the English/Europeans? What about the Native Americans who were suppressed by American settlers? Did we EVER say that the initial suppression of another people was easy, or immediately beneficial? No. What we're saying is that in the long run all three of those were better off, and that's just a small example. Now in some cases, there are still things that could be improved, as in the case of the Native Americans, but they have the same access to all the modern benefits that the rest of us enjoy, and how is that not a good thing?

And as for the Irish, they're now seen as one of the artistic and cultural capitals of the world, how is that bad? Most of the artwork and designs we see from them come from times of intense conflict with other peoples. And as to the Negros, many of them have proven to be every bit as (and sometimes more) adaptable to change than us "stuck in a rut" white people. All three of them have proven the point, and I'm sure there are more cultures out there that can do the same.

I repeat my point, suppression and conflict is HARD. It can lead to good things later on, but the main point is that it is necessary for change and innovation.

All right: first, "negro" really isn't a very good word to be using. If you want to avoid offence, just say "black people"!

More importantly, none of what you say here supports your claim. Certainly it's good that the Irish and native Americans and other groups are doing well. But you haven't shown that this is a direct result of their being oppressed. It may be, in part, a result of their being in contact with more advanced societies (well, not in the case of the Irish anyway) and ultimately adopting elements of the technology or culture of those societies. But that could happen without being oppressed! Indeed, without the oppression, that process would probably happen more easily.

Besides, it may be true that a certain degree of conflict and struggle helps a society to adapt, grow, and prosper. No-one will dispute that. But to say that oppression has this effect is pretty dubious, because there comes a point where hardship is so extreme that it stifles growth and prosperity. You cannot seriously say, for example, that the Atlantic slave trade encouraged the development and growth of its victims: not only did vast numbers of them die, but the survivors led menial lives without access to education or anything to give them hope. Even their religions were suppressed. Their descendants today are doing better, of course, at least most of them. Many of them may even be doing better than their pre-slavery ancestors did, or better than their distant relations who never experienced slavery at all are doing. But that's not a result of the oppression! It's a result of the end of the oppression.

Similarly with the Irish. I can't say I think they're doing all that well - to the casual observer, at least, Ireland looks rather like a poorer version of Britain, which isn't much of an accolade - but that's by the by. I cannot see how being oppressed by the English left the Irish better off. Surely it is more plausible to say that if the Irish are better off now, it's because the English stopped oppressing them. And if they hadn't been oppressed in the first place, surely they would be even better off today.

So again: if you can point to some example of how oppression of a group, of this kind, has led to benefits so great that they outweigh the terrible suffering involved in the oppression itself - and not simply an oppressed group which has later gone on to recover from the oppression - then you might have a point.

Does Japan making binding of the feet illegal in Taiwan count?

No, because making foot-binding is not, in itself, an example of oppression. The Japanese could have done that without doing any oppression (assuming that we can distinguish between occupying a country and oppressing its people). Conversely, they could have been oppressive without passing any progressive laws (as they did in plenty of other places).

Now it may often be that one group has oppressed another group and had beneficial effects on it as well. Indeed that's perfectly likely, given that no society is all bad. But the claim here is that the oppression itself is, or can be, beneficial. That's what seems to me to be highly implausible (quite apart from its dubious morality).

 

[Yeekim]

I have a historical question: In your opinion, can a legitimate civilization thrive and survive without warring, oppressing, or generally being underhanded to at least one group of people/other civilization (America/UK/China for example).

Theoretically, yes.
Don't think there are any examples, though.

 

[Traitorfish]

What about the Irish and Negros being suppressed by the English/Europeans? What about the Native Americans who were suppressed by American settlers? Did we EVER say that the initial suppression of another people was easy, or immediately beneficial? No. What we're saying is that in the long run all three of those were better off, and that's just a small example.

Given that pre-Tudor Ireland was more or less on a par with contemporary Scotland (perhaps slightly ahead, in fact), and fared rather worse during it's occupation, only to come out, if anything, on top again afterwards, I am seriously lead to wonder why you chose such an utterly godawful example.