so there is much political motivation for philosophical control and cultural prosyletizing. governments will use religion in order to gain control over a people and the geographical area that they live in.
religious people, however, attempt to make converts because they believe their religion to be true. they do not have the same motivation as governments.
Good distinction.
I see colonialism as more of an expansion exercise which neglected other cultures for personal gain -a change in culture would not have been a primary goal.
A “Culture War” is an action carried out by a group intended specifically to alter the social and traditional norms of others from outside that group possibly as some sort of favor.
That’s the way I would define colonialism as well. I agree partly with your definition of “culture war” as it pertains to the deliberate efforts to alter traditional norms. I don’t view it as being carried out as any sort of favor to the people, though - I think the changes are always *presented *as positive ideals, but often with the knowledge by those who introduce them that the changes suggested are more to break down certain characteristics that unify a culture so as to be able to ascend above it and gain control. Divide and conquer. Culture wars can be perpetrated by people who lie on the boundaries of the dominant culture, and who enlist either self-serving or gullible people within it to help spread the seeds of change.
I have some difficulty applying this theory when discussing historic events, though; my mind makes the correlation to our modern culture wars, with which I’m more familiar, so I may fall into the error of attributing the same intentions I see in current trends to situations and people that were vastly different.
The best way to describe a Culture War (or what I think is called culture war) is by using examples.
–The French Revolution: A period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a lasting impact on French history. The new principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity expressed the new “Enlightenment ideals”.
Culture war, I would presume. Interesting to study the link between anarchists and freemasonry during this period.
–Romanization: the conquest of neighboring European civilizations by the Roman Empire which commonly occurred voluntarily offered little benefit to Rome itself. Romanization is known for its rejection of “apartheid” and offered full citizenship with equal rights to its subjects no different than the rights of a Roman born citizen… All one needed to do was to adopt Roman customs.
I think we agree. The will of ancient Rome was a military and expansionist one. But I would guess that any cultural changes that came as a result of Roman domination were a by-product of it (eliminating Roman
intent). Could be wrong about this, though.
–Islamic Conquests: Conversion to the faith or Allegiance to Islam was a requirement for all subjects during conquests. All one needed to do was to accept Islamic law and worship Allah. Zoroastrianism and countless Pagan religions were replaced by a new religion.
Similar to Rome, but with a greater focus on conversion, perhaps?
–The Crusades: …We all know how the story goes.
. In any case, whole societies were changed forever by accepting Christian faith and morals, paganism was replaced.
I’m not knowledgeable enough with regard to the Crusades to opine assertively. I’m more familiar with the “reclaiming” of land than an intent to evangelize. Where was paganism replaced (in significant numbers)?
…I’m sure there are numerous reasons why a smaller, weaker more corrupt culture might be happy to join a larger stronger and (possibly) more just culture -but my question is to understand why the dominant cultures choose to take-in other cultures? There have been, after all, countless other cultures that did not practice this at all.
The “smart” cultures do not willingly take in other cultures - if they have an interest in preserving their own, that is.
Or, maybe I should amend that to say that they will not take in other cultures in large numbers. Sometimes they are tricked; sometimes they are seduced by ideas they don’t realize are harmful until it’s too late. Sometimes the dominant culture does **not **make the choice - the choice is made by its leaders who profit from it, regardless of the wishes of the masses. Sometimes, the dominant cultures don’t really have a choice if they are challenged by a militarily and technologically - advanced foe.
I know this might be kind of a strange question.
Not strange at all. It’s a rather important question today, I think.
