Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
You should know me better than this. I am far from being radically PC about this topic. OTOH, I find your position offensive, as I think I have made clear. Do you think NONE of the suffering in sub-Saharan Africa results from Colonial influences? What does this have to do with your original ill-advised comment? Your primary defense, so far, has been to attempt to paint me as a radical PC freak. (I defy you to find direct evidence to support this position.) Otherwise, you fall back on the "life is so much better for these people now" position. That is poppycock, and so is your belief that aboriginal cultural values were intrinsically inferior, as Diamond's book showed.
|
This is actually a pretty good exchange despite your emotion. I don't think life is so much better for them. This is the insoluble dilemma I identified that caused you to take a swipe at me as attacking religion. I do believe most emphaticaly the world is better off in the macro because of the events I identified. As for Diamond, as you know, I'm a Diamond fan, but I don't agree he went as far as you claim. His hypothesis is that environment, not race or genes, is what gave rise to the great, wealthy civilizations. I don't disagree. I agree with him. But the nations with higher standards of living, less infant mortality, etc., are what they are largely because of culture, albeit culture that has been helped along and shaped decisively by environmental factors. We are to some extent arguing about semantics, but it's important to recognize that our culture has deliberately made taboo any use of of the word "culture" as short hand for the values and practices that indubitably shaped the course of history and distribution of wealth, health, etc.