Why isn't imperialism evil?

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve been told since I was little that the British schoolteachers in Ireland when it was a colony of England would beat the children if they spoke Gaelic. I’ve never looked into whether that is a true statement, but it is true that Gaelic is barely spoken at all in Ireland anymore.

I don’t know about the beatings. I do know that before the Famine a very sizeable portion of the population in Ireland was Gaelic-speaking. One of my sets of great-grandparents was Gaelic speaking. Another was only English-speaking.

This doesn’t have a whole lot to do with anything, but I sort of enjoy the story. When my father was a little kid, his family often went to the home of his Gaelic-speaking grandparents to say the rosary. They all said it in Gaelic because the old folks really weren’t very good with English. He said it took forever.

On the other hand, my mother’s grandparents were from Italy and (it must have been a custom among Catholics then) they often went to the old folks house to say the rosary, and it took no time at all to say it in Italian.

A few years ago, an Irish priest taught me the “Hail Mary” in Gaelic, and it seems to me it would not take so very long to say it (perhaps the “Our Fathers” take a long time?) However, one of my daughters learned the whole rosary in Italian just to do it, and I can testify that it is very quick.

One last tale and I’ll quit. A couple of years ago I happened to be talking to a lady who happens to be a judge. Turns out she was sending her children to a Catholic high school though neither she nor they are Catholic. She just thought it would be a better environment. Anyway, somehow it came up that I could say the Hail Mary in Gaelic and she insisted that I write it down, both as it’s written in Gaelic and also with English pronunciation. Her kids were really taken with it, learned it and said it at school, Protestants though they were. With that, the whole student body wanted to learn it and make it a custom to say it on St. Patrick’s Day at the school. Whether it lasted or not, I don’t know.

I think things like that are neat.

Interesting that the pronunciation of Gaelic is different, depending on the part of Ireland where it was or is spoken. The priest was from the “Pale” and pronounced the sign of the cross differently from the way my Irish grandmother did. Same words, but the vowel sounds were different. A family division then developed. I say it the way the priest did. My “originalist” daughter insists on the “County Mayo pronunciation”.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t know about the beatings. I do know that before the Famine a very sizeable portion of the population in Ireland was Gaelic-speaking. One of my sets of great-grandparents was Gaelic speaking. Another was only English-speaking.

My mother’s grandmother, who was born in County Cork, could say her prayers in Gaelic. Her parents were bilingual in Gaelic and English, and their parents spoke only Gaelic. Probably apocryphal but a family story nonetheless.

Celtic languages were doing quite well in the U.K – I think I’ve even read that speakers of Celtic languages outnumbered speakers of English – until sometime in the 18th century, I’d say? I’d like to know more about why they declined so precipitously (apart from the beatings).

I’ve dabbled a little bit in Welsh. It’s not for the faint of heart.

To actually contribute something to stated topic of the thread: the consensus view is that imperialism is wrong because people are thought to have a right to self-determination.

 

[Jimmygill88]

The Irish Scots and Welsh all had their language virtually destroyed by English cultural imperialists. Mass was said on mass rocks and informers were paid huge sums of money for information leading to the capture of the priest (£5) for a mass goer £1. Children were educated in fields (often by Irish American returners). My own greatgrandmother always said ‘mom’ and ‘sidewalk’ in the American way following her education in a hedge school. My dad remembered Black and Tan british paramilitary force tying a teenaged boy to the back of there car and driving up and down the village until his head was gone and being hit and called a papist, Fenian, left footer. Mayo never saw much benefit from British occupation

 

[Ridgerunner]

My mother’s grandmother, who was born in County Cork, could say her prayers in Gaelic. Her parents were bilingual in Gaelic and English, and their parents spoke only Gaelic. Probably apocryphal but a family story nonetheless.

Celtic languages were doing quite well in the U.K – I think I’ve even read that speakers of Celtic languages outnumbered speakers of English – until sometime in the 18th century, I’d say? I’d like to know more about why they declined so precipitously (apart from the beatings).

I’ve dabbled a little bit in Welsh. It’s not for the faint of heart.

To actually contribute something to stated topic of the thread: the consensus view is that imperialism is wrong because people are thought to have a right to self-determination.

It is my impression that a lot of languages died out in the British Isles. The pre-Celtic Iberians undoubtedly had their own language(s). Undoubtedly some Scandinavian languages were spoken there in times and places.

In England, one glance at the text of Beowulf in Old English tells you it died out. The great majority of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic languages died out in favor of the dialect of the environs of London as London became the commercial, literary and political center of England. Chaucer, indeed, is thought to have been the “standard” for literary and spoken English in the same way Dante is thought to have been the “father” of modern Italian. Of perhaps passing interest is the opinion held by some linguists that the language of Shakespeare’s time was (while intelligible to us in print) spoken rather more like the English of today’s Appalachia than it was of today’s England.

Frankly, while it might have been so, I have serious doubts that the majority in 18th Century England spoke a Celtic language. Of the various linguistic oddities, it may be noted that while English contains a lot of Anglo-Saxon, a lot of French (2 doses) a lot of Latin and a sprinkling of Scandinavian, but essentially no Gaelic except for some structural similarities.

Getting back to the topic, it’s difficult to discuss imperialism because it varied a lot, and the current development of the world makes it seem a lot more outrageous than it probably seemed several hundred years ago. But I have, more than once, heard (and seen on this thread) the assertion that the terrible thing about imperialism is that it disturbed the natural development of the various cultures it affected.

But despite the bad name imperialism has, one has to ask whether “natural development” of the various past and present cultures of the world is all that beneficent. Again, it’s hard to put it under a microscope because there is “cultural imperialism” as well as “phyisical imperialism”. Virtually the entire world is affected by “cultural imperialism”, and voluntarily for the most part.

But what of the involuntary cultural imperialism of times past? Well, there aren’t very many examples of the “natural development” of any particular culture outside those nations that became imperialistic. Some were arrested or changed, so we can’t know what they would have been like had they not been influenced by imperialism. But some of them did not seem too promising from our values standpoint.Would the world really have been better off if the Aztecs, for example, had not had their culture disrupted? Would the Americas have been better off had their empire expanded? Hard to believe it would have been a good thing. Had the Americans not conquered the U.S. would Comanche rule in the southern plains have ever developed into anything decent? Their known history does not favor an affirmative conclusion.

One people that truly did resist all physical forms of imperialism and most cultural imperialism was Japan. It “developed naturally” with a minimum of western influence about as much as any nation during the age of imperialism did, and the result was anything but good. Japan, of course, had imperial ambitions and a minor imperialist history itself.

And, of course, usually when people decry imperialism, they are thinking about early modern European imperialism or European-American imperialism. But one can look around the world and readily see that the most benign governments in the world are located in Europe and America, and the next most benign are those that were heavily influenced by them. So, was their influence bad, or would the world have been much worse without their influence? Is India, for example, better off with English law and English democracy than it would have been had its various despotic states been able to “develop naturally”? One is tempted mightily to think it is.

But it’s a mixed thing. One can easily imagine that the rule of Rome and its influence was better than the Hunnic rule that would have prevailed in Europe had Rome not resisted it. On the other hand, one can ask whether Turkish rule was better than Arab rule in the Middle EAst. One is inclined to think not, although one cannot deny that Arab rule had largely fallen to chaotic pieces before the Ottomans; even before the Seljuks, and was not on a favorable trajectory.

On the whole, my own belief is that while one must be guarded about endorsing imperialism per se, it is difficult to deny that in some instances it was better than what it replaced during its heyday. One is much less inclined to think of it positively in a modern setting.

 

[Jimmygill88]

It is my impression that a lot of languages died out in the British Isles. The pre-Celtic Iberians undoubtedly had their own language(s). Undoubtedly some Scandinavian languages were spoken there in times and places.

In England, one glance at the text of Beowulf in Old English tells you it died out. The great majority of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic languages died out in favor of the dialect of the environs of London as London became the commercial, literary and political center of England. Chaucer, indeed, is thought to have been the “standard” for literary and spoken English in the same way Dante is thought to have been the “father” of modern Italian. Of perhaps passing interest is the opinion held by some linguists that the language of Shakespeare’s time was (while intelligible to us in print) spoken rather more like the English of today’s Appalachia than it was of today’s England.

Frankly, while it might have been so, I have serious doubts that the majority in 18th Century England spoke a Celtic language. Of the various linguistic oddities, it may be noted that while English contains a lot of Anglo-Saxon, a lot of French (2 doses) a lot of Latin and a sprinkling of Scandinavian, but essentially no Gaelic except for some structural similarities.

Getting back to the topic, it’s difficult to discuss imperialism because it varied a lot, and the current development of the world makes it seem a lot more outrageous than it probably seemed several hundred years ago. But I have, more than once, heard (and seen on this thread) the assertion that the terrible thing about imperialism is that it disturbed the natural development of the various cultures it affected.

But despite the bad name imperialism has, one has to ask whether “natural development” of the various past and present cultures of the world is all that beneficent. Again, it’s hard to put it under a microscope because there is “cultural imperialism” as well as “phyisical imperialism”. Virtually the entire world is affected by “cultural imperialism”, and voluntarily for the most part.

But what of the involuntary cultural imperialism of times past? Well, there aren’t very many examples of the “natural development” of any particular culture outside those nations that became imperialistic. Some were arrested or changed, so we can’t know what they would have been like had they not been influenced by imperialism. But some of them did not seem too promising from our values standpoint.Would the world really have been better off if the Aztecs, for example, had not had their culture disrupted? Would the Americas have been better off had their empire expanded? Hard to believe it would have been a good thing. Had the Americans not conquered the U.S. would Comanche rule in the southern plains have ever developed into anything decent? Their known history does not favor an affirmative conclusion.

One people that truly did resist all physical forms of imperialism and most cultural imperialism was Japan. It “developed naturally” with a minimum of western influence about as much as any nation during the age of imperialism did, and the result was anything but good. Japan, of course, had imperial ambitions and a minor imperialist history itself.

And, of course, usually when people decry imperialism, they are thinking about early modern European imperialism or European-American imperialism. But one can look around the world and readily see that the most benign governments in the world are located in Europe and America, and the next most benign are those that were heavily influenced by them. So, was their influence bad, or would the world have been much worse without their influence? Is India, for example, better off with English law and English democracy than it would have been had its various despotic states been able to “develop naturally”? One is tempted mightily to think it is.

But it’s a mixed thing. One can easily imagine that the rule of Rome and its influence was better than the Hunnic rule that would have prevailed in Europe had Rome not resisted it. On the other hand, one can ask whether Turkish rule was better than Arab rule in the Middle EAst. One is inclined to think not, although one cannot deny that Arab rule had largely fallen to chaotic pieces before the Ottomans; even before the Seljuks, and was not on a favorable trajectory.

On the whole, my own belief is that while one must be guarded about endorsing imperialism per se, it is difficult to deny that in some instances it was better than what it replaced during its heyday. One is much less inclined to think of it positively in a modern setting.

Which is an easy hypothesis to postulate until a stranger knocks on your door and says that they are taking over your house because they believe they are more civilised than you

 

[migueltojose]

Freedom and Independence require Responsibility and Discipline…

Issues arise when these are not congruent.

We are dangerously close to jeopardizing ours but it is a social and cultural issue. Don’t blame poilitics, the media or institutions. Collectively, we are them. We need a grass roots revolution of the heart, soul and mind of America.

Like Jack Nicholson said in ‘A Few Good Men’ . . . you (we) can’t handle the truth . . . we are like spoiled children . . .

It seems to me that we are and remain an immature country. We’re like the small town high school valedictorian who goes off to the state university and ends up partying way to hard and is struggling to get by. Usually they fight their way through it and it all works out… but not always . . . some drop out and become local stoners or some cower home defeated . . .

We left Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia for a reason. For the elusive hope and change. A chance. Opportunity. We need to earn and deserve the freedom and independence required to pursue or create these opportunities with discipline and responsibility.

To the point - Imperialism, done well, (and it often is) is better than total ineptitude.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Which is an easy hypothesis to postulate until a stranger knocks on your door and says that they are taking over your house because they believe they are more civilised than you

I’m vulnerable then, because there are a lot of people more civilized than I am.

One may well imagine a lot of palaces were taken over during history’s imperialistic adventures, (though one is often surprised how frequently they weren’t) just as they are taken over now by the change of home-grown dictators in many countries. One may reasonably question, however, how many primitive huts, hovels and the like were appropriated to the use of the various outside conquerors.

As between being expropriated by some foreign power or some domestic tyrant, I doubt there’s a lot to be preferred between the two.

 

[tomarin]

It is my impression that a lot of languages died out in the British Isles. The pre-Celtic Iberians undoubtedly had their own language(s). Undoubtedly some Scandinavian languages were spoken there in times and places.

In England, one glance at the text of Beowulf in Old English tells you it died out. The great majority of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic languages died out in favor of the dialect of the environs of London as London became the commercial, literary and political center of England. Chaucer, indeed, is thought to have been the “standard” for literary and spoken English in the same way Dante is thought to have been the “father” of modern Italian. Of perhaps passing interest is the opinion held by some linguists that the language of Shakespeare’s time was (while intelligible to us in print) spoken rather more like the English of today’s Appalachia than it was of today’s England.

Frankly, while it might have been so, I have serious doubts that the majority in 18th Century England spoke a Celtic language. Of the various linguistic oddities, it may be noted that while English contains a lot of Anglo-Saxon, a lot of French (2 doses) a lot of Latin and a sprinkling of Scandinavian, but essentially no Gaelic except for some structural similarities.

Getting back to the topic, it’s difficult to discuss imperialism because it varied a lot, and the current development of the world makes it seem a lot more outrageous than it probably seemed several hundred years ago. But I have, more than once, heard (and seen on this thread) the assertion that the terrible thing about imperialism is that it disturbed the natural development of the various cultures it affected.

But despite the bad name imperialism has, one has to ask whether “natural development” of the various past and present cultures of the world is all that beneficent. Again, it’s hard to put it under a microscope because there is “cultural imperialism” as well as “phyisical imperialism”. Virtually the entire world is affected by “cultural imperialism”, and voluntarily for the most part.

But what of the involuntary cultural imperialism of times past? Well, there aren’t very many examples of the “natural development” of any particular culture outside those nations that became imperialistic. Some were arrested or changed, so we can’t know what they would have been like had they not been influenced by imperialism. But some of them did not seem too promising from our values standpoint.Would the world really have been better off if the Aztecs, for example, had not had their culture disrupted? Would the Americas have been better off had their empire expanded? Hard to believe it would have been a good thing. Had the Americans not conquered the U.S. would Comanche rule in the southern plains have ever developed into anything decent? Their known history does not favor an affirmative conclusion.

One people that truly did resist all physical forms of imperialism and most cultural imperialism was Japan. It “developed naturally” with a minimum of western influence about as much as any nation during the age of imperialism did, and the result was anything but good. Japan, of course, had imperial ambitions and a minor imperialist history itself.

And, of course, usually when people decry imperialism, they are thinking about early modern European imperialism or European-American imperialism. But one can look around the world and readily see that the most benign governments in the world are located in Europe and America, and the next most benign are those that were heavily influenced by them. So, was their influence bad, or would the world have been much worse without their influence? Is India, for example, better off with English law and English democracy than it would have been had its various despotic states been able to “develop naturally”? One is tempted mightily to think it is.

But it’s a mixed thing. One can easily imagine that the rule of Rome and its influence was better than the Hunnic rule that would have prevailed in Europe had Rome not resisted it. On the other hand, one can ask whether Turkish rule was better than Arab rule in the Middle EAst. One is inclined to think not, although one cannot deny that Arab rule had largely fallen to chaotic pieces before the Ottomans; even before the Seljuks, and was not on a favorable trajectory.

On the whole, my own belief is that while one must be guarded about endorsing imperialism per se, it is difficult to deny that in some instances it was better than what it replaced during its heyday. One is much less inclined to think of it positively in a modern setting.

 

[tomarin]

It is my impression that a lot of languages died out in the British Isles. The pre-Celtic Iberians undoubtedly had their own language(s). Undoubtedly some Scandinavian languages were spoken there in times and places.

Well yes. But the languages of the Celtic fringe survived intact until relatively recently unlike say Old Norse.

In England, one glance at the text of Beowulf in Old English tells you it died out. The great majority of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic languages died out in favor of the dialect of the environs of London as London became the commercial, literary and political center of England. Chaucer, indeed, is thought to have been the “standard” for literary and spoken English in the same way Dante is thought to have been the “father” of modern Italian. Of perhaps passing interest is the opinion held by some linguists that the language of Shakespeare’s time was (while intelligible to us in print) spoken rather more like the English of today’s Appalachia than it was of today’s England.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you, but surely Old English didn’t “die out” so much as evolve into modern English. You’re right there are few borrow words of Celtic origin in English (whisky does come to mind as a rare example) however many place names in the south and west I believe are of Celtic origin. Now that I think about it, it may have been the 17th century when there were such large numbers of Celtic speakers, living parallel to but distinct from the only-English-speaking core. Certainly you would agree at one time there were a lot more than there are now.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well yes. But the languages of the Celtic fringe survived intact until relatively recently unlike say Old Norse.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you, but surely Old English didn’t “die out” so much as evolve into modern English. You’re right there are few borrow words of Celtic origin in English (whisky does come to mind as a rare example) however many place names in the south and west I believe are of Celtic origin. Now that I think about it, it may have been the 17th century when there were such large numbers of Celtic speakers, living parallel to but distinct from the only-English-speaking core. Certainly you would agree at one time there were a lot more than there are now.

I read long ago that there were a number of dialects in England as late as the 18th Century that were barely mutually intelligible. They could have been mixes of a number of things. Some were spoken only in small areas.

Beowulf was supposedly composed sometime between the 8th and 11th Centuries. (long gap) If you look at Beowulf in Old English, there are only a few words a modern English speaker can make out. I am no linguist, but if you look at Chaucer, it’s very much like modern English. Chaucer was born in the 14th Century. A real linguist could tell us, but the difference in intelligibility makes one think there is more than simply evolution involved, particularly if one assumes the 11th Century as the composition date for Beowulf.

In the interests of full disclosure, I took a Chaucer course in college in which we were not allowed to use modern English for any purpose other than research papers. So it was a crash course in Chaucerian English, and it might, for that reason, seem more intelligible than it might seem for someone else. In similar manner, one who has studied Beowulf closely might see more of the roots of modern English in it than I do, and might find it more intelligible as well.

Then too, Chaucer’s English was heavily influenced by the French many in the educated classes could still speak, and which many in the merchant class needed to speak. That would not have been true of Beowulf. There is a lot of French in modern English. A French speaker could probably make out 1/4 to 1/3 of written English even if he didn’t know a word of English otherwise, depending on what the text was about. (more if about business, less if about football) And he could make out the sentence structure too, as French and English are very similar in that regard.

But I do know there were some Anglo-Saxon dialects in England in Chaucer’s time that were barely intelligible to a speaker of another of them, dialects that died out completely.

And, of course, Scottish and Welsh are Celtic languages, and surely affected England’s peripheries or at least encouraged retention of some other Celtic language for a time.

Since you mentioned Old Norse, the only place on earth where it’s still spoken is Iceland. They alone can readily read the old Norse sagas as written. I have heard an Icelander speak it and, to my ears, it’s quite odd. We think of all Teutonic languages as somehow being closely akin to modern German. But they aren’t.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I read long ago that there were a number of dialects in England as late as the 18th Century that were barely mutually intelligible. They could have been mixes of a number of things. Some were spoken only in small areas.

Beowulf was supposedly composed sometime between the 8th and 11th Centuries. (long gap) If you look at Beowulf in Old English, there are only a few words a modern English speaker can make out. I am no linguist, but if you look at Chaucer, it’s very much like modern English. Chaucer was born in the 14th Century. A real linguist could tell us, but the difference in intelligibility makes one think there is more than simply evolution involved, particularly if one assumes the 11th Century as the composition date for Beowulf.

In the interests of full disclosure, I took a Chaucer course in college in which we were not allowed to use modern English for any purpose other than research papers. So it was a crash course in Chaucerian English, and it might, for that reason, seem more intelligible than it might seem for someone else. In similar manner, one who has studied Beowulf closely might see more of the roots of modern English in it than I do, and might find it more intelligible as well.

Then too, Chaucer’s English was heavily influenced by the French many in the educated classes could still speak, and which many in the merchant class needed to speak. That would not have been true of Beowulf. There is a lot of French in modern English. A French speaker could probably make out 1/4 to 1/3 of written English even if he didn’t know a word of English otherwise, depending on what the text was about. (more if about business, less if about football) And he could make out the sentence structure too, as French and English are very similar in that regard.

But I do know there were some Anglo-Saxon dialects in England in Chaucer’s time that were barely intelligible to a speaker of another of them, dialects that died out completely.

And, of course, Scottish and Welsh are Celtic languages, and surely affected England’s peripheries or at least encouraged retention of some other Celtic language for a time.

Since you mentioned Old Norse, the only place on earth where it’s still spoken is Iceland. They alone can readily read the old Norse sagas as written. I have heard an Icelander speak it and, to my ears, it’s quite odd. We think of all Teutonic languages as somehow being closely akin to modern German. But they aren’t.

You overlooked the fact that not that long after Chaucer came the printing press and the accompanying effects this had on making language more static.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You overlooked the fact that not that long after Chaucer came the printing press and the accompanying effects this had on making language more static.

Undoubtedly it did. I was, however, reminded by your post of Chaucer’s complaint to his scrivener who, he asserted, did not make his copies accurately. So Chaucer was “published” in a way, with however many copies “Adam Scriveyn” made and however many copies were copied by literature thieves. But the copies could not have been all that many, no matter what, by that method, no matter how good Adam was. And I doubt many found their way outside London.

 

[Jimmygill88]

I’m vulnerable then, because there are a lot of people more civilized than I am.

One may well imagine a lot of palaces were taken over during history’s imperialistic adventures, (though one is often surprised how frequently they weren’t) just as they are taken over now by the change of home-grown dictators in many countries. One may reasonably question, however, how many primitive huts, hovels and the like were appropriated to the use of the various outside conquerors.

As between being expropriated by some foreign power or some domestic tyrant, I doubt there’s a lot to be preferred between the two.

‘Primitive huts and hovels’? This is the language used often by Victorian cultural supremacists. Something not built of materials or to a design that was not recognisable to them was deemed primitive or savage. It is noteworthy that many 15th century buildings destroyed last week in Mali were made of mud and were hut like in shape. It is also worth remembering that if a British person were asked to live in a house with a wooden exterior they would imagine they were being asked to live in a garden shed. It is useless to attempt to impose mores from on culture onto another

 

[Ridgerunner]

‘Primitive huts and hovels’? This is the language used often by Victorian cultural supremacists. Something not built of materials or to a design that was not recognisable to them was deemed primitive or savage. It is noteworthy that many 15th century buildings destroyed last week in Mali were made of mud and were hut like in shape. It is also worth remembering that if a British person were asked to live in a house with a wooden exterior they would imagine they were being asked to live in a garden shed. It is useless to attempt to impose mores from on culture onto another

“Victorian cultural supremacists”???

Without attacking or defending “Victorian culture” (which was hardly monolithic) some cultures actually are superior to others. Would you truly prefer to live in the mountains of Afghanistan to living in the UK? Perhaps your self-disclosed location denotes choice, perhaps not.

And I’m not so sure it’s useless to attempt to impose mores of one culture onto people who have had another. To the best of my knowledge, Mexicans today do not cut the hearts out of living people ceremonially then roast and eat the victims’ bodies. They once did until another culture was imposed upon them.

And one can hardly deny that western European (particularly English) culture was imposed on North America north of the Rio Grande. In what ways was that culture inferior to that of the Comanches or Tonkawas? Perhaps one could start the comparison with their respective legal systems. We can wait.

Possibly if there was a plenitude of wood in Britain as there is in the U.S. and Canada, the Brits actually might find it comfortable and salubrious to side their homes with wood. After all, many Americans and Canadians are of English descent, yet chose to use an abundant and inexpensive material that does not readily conduct the cold and damp notwithstanding an abundance of stone and the makings of daub and wattle ready to hand. Perhaps the wisdom of the choice should be researched, not assumed.

 

[Jimmygill88]

“Victorian cultural supremacists”???

Without attacking or defending “Victorian culture” (which was hardly monolithic) some cultures actually are superior to others. Would you truly prefer to live in the mountains of Afghanistan to living in the UK? Perhaps your self-disclosed location denotes choice, perhaps not.

And I’m not so sure it’s useless to attempt to impose mores of one culture onto people who have had another. To the best of my knowledge, Mexicans today do not cut the hearts out of living people ceremonially then roast and eat the victims’ bodies. They once did until another culture was imposed upon them.

And one can hardly deny that western European (particularly English) culture was imposed on North America north of the Rio Grande. In what ways was that culture inferior to that of the Comanches or Tonkawas? Perhaps one could start the comparison with their respective legal systems. We can wait.

Possibly if there was a plenitude of wood in Britain as there is in the U.S. and Canada, the Brits actually might find it comfortable and salubrious to side their homes with wood. After all, many Americans and Canadians are of English descent, yet chose to use an abundant and inexpensive material that does not readily conduct the cold and damp notwithstanding an abundance of stone and the makings of daub and wattle ready to hand. Perhaps the wisdom of the choice should be researched,

You appear to genuinely believe that one culture is better than another based on what you are familiar with and comfortable around. I think that is cultural arrogance. I wouldn’t like to live in the Khyber Pass. But that’s because it’s not where I’m from and I am unused to the difference. I do not however seek to change Afghanistan in order to make it homely for me. I’m sure the Aztecs were delighted to have their ancient culture destroyed and to die from the European smallpox. Of course we will never know how their culture would have developed. Celts were quite fond of human sacrifice. And the disgusting spectacle of people watching another person being executed so beloved of many countries (including sadly the USA) personally nauseates me. But that’s your ‘culture’.

 

[Jimmygill88]

“Victorian cultural supremacists”???

Without attacking or defending “Victorian culture” (which was hardly monolithic) some cultures actually are superior to others. Would you truly prefer to live in the mountains of Afghanistan to living in the UK? Perhaps your self-disclosed location denotes choice, perhaps not.

And I’m not so sure it’s useless to attempt to impose mores of one culture onto people who have had another. To the best of my knowledge, Mexicans today do not cut the hearts out of living people ceremonially then roast and eat the victims’ bodies. They once did until another culture was imposed upon them.

And one can hardly deny that western European (particularly English) culture was imposed on North America north of the Rio Grande. In what ways was that culture inferior to that of the Comanches or Tonkawas? Perhaps one could start the comparison with their respective legal systems. We can wait.

Possibly if there was a plenitude of wood in Britain as there is in the U.S. and Canada, the Brits actually might find it comfortable and salubrious to side their homes with wood. After all, many Americans and Canadians are of English descent, yet chose to use an abundant and inexpensive material that does not readily conduct the cold and damp notwithstanding an abundance of stone and the makings of daub and wattle ready to hand. Perhaps the wisdom of the choice should be researched,

You appear to genuinely believe that one culture is better than another based on what you are familiar with and comfortable around. I think that is cultural arrogance. I wouldn’t like to live in the Khyber Pass. But that’s because it’s not where I’m from and I am unused to the difference. I do not however seek to change Afghanistan in order to make it homely for me. I’m sure the Aztecs were delighted to have their ancient culture destroyed and to die from the European smallpox. Of course we will never know how their culture would have developed. Celts were quite fond of human sacrifice. And the disgusting spectacle of people watching another person being executed so beloved of many countries (including sadly the USA) personally nauseates me. But that’s your ‘culture’.