21th century is asian century.. do you think so?

[IndiReloaded]

Mish, you're preoccupation with 'right & wrong' on a subject like this really shows just how very naive you are. This is a discussion of what WAS, what IS, and what it might mean for the future.

Anyway, reread the posts, Mish, if you care that much. ALL of them, not just the ones you'd like to use to support your dubious argument.

This all started b/c you got miffed that Russia/Soviet Union wasn't mentioned in my list of 'world changing achievements'. Which I said wasn't necessarily complete, just biased towards Western achievement. And it IS. I don't give a crap if you don't like it, but that doesn't change my list. Your added areas of contribution (e.g. medicine) are neither specific, nor culture-changing in the form you listed them. In fact, if I were to go through your additions I would be able to STILL add more Western influence. I didn't even mention the cracking of the genetic code, for example (great medicine? Hell, yes). But, as I said, I don't consider those inventions (tho awesome) to be culture-altering. Not yet, anyway. Tho one could argue the discovery of the genetic code IS a culture-changing invention, like the internet, but that's not the subject of this discussion. It was about ASIAN contribution.

That's not to say ALL contribution is Western (duh, again, I only said *biased*), but the bias is there, nevertheless. It was meant as a foil for comparable asian contribution. And, sorry, but you have to go waaaay back to come up with anything significant from those cultures you mention, and as Gribble & others said, they didn't do much with it except put down their own internal squabbles. That is NOT what I mean when I discuss GLOBAL cultural change.

So, instead of whining about it, why not actually look at the *reasons* for why western influence became so dominant? You might actually learn something.

Jared Diamond does a decent summary of this in his "Guns, Germs & Steel" btw, you might want to pick up a copy.

So, if you don't want to agree with my assessment of history, that is your prerogative, however I think you'll find that the only ppl who will agree with you are small-minded folk who have chips of various sorts on their shoulders. Asian & middle east cultures are integrating western ideas and methods into their own hand over fist. And well they should. Do you think that's an accident?

As for the future, I have also made my views on this very clear. My son is learning Mandarin b/c I'm hedging my bets.

At this point, if this isn't clear to you, Mish, or anyone else: tough. You'll just have to think about this more for yourself. I can't do much better than this.

[Mish]

Which I said wasn't necessarily complete, just biased towards Western achievement. And it IS.

Okay you admit what you said was biased? That works for me.

Asian & middle east cultures are integrating western ideas and methods into their own hand over fist.

I don't know which ideas you are referring to, but yes there are some western ideas which are being integrated in Middle East and Asia. I agree. The technology gets passed down from one culture to another, like the passing of the torch that I mentioned earlier. It doesn't mean that western ideas are the most influential of all time, it means that some western ideas influence other cultures at the moment. If this is what you meant, then I agree with it. I just don't understand why you couldn't put it in those exact words yourself.

And, sorry, but you have to go waaaay back to come up with anything significant from those cultures you mention, and as Gribble & others said, they didn't do much with it except put down their own internal squabbles.

I refuted what Girbble posted about gunpowder with a link to a site and a book written in Cambridge university on the subject. I don't know in what context to interpret the "they didn't do much with it" when in fact Chinese did a lot with it. Though Muslims expanded on that and created the first mass military guns and even first gunpowder powered cannons before the Europeans. Turks even used cannons to take Constantinople from the Greeks.

So "they didn't do much with it" referring to technological inventions of the rest of the world in the context of being inferior to European culture is being extremely ignorant of the facts.

[Gribble]

I refuted what Girbble posted about gunpowder with a link to a site and a book written in Cambridge university on the subject. I don't know in what context to interpret the "they didn't do much with it" when in fact Chinese did a lot with it.

I really don't see where they did. Certainly nothing they did compared to what the French and the British managed with that technology.

[Mish]

I really don't see where they did. Certainly nothing they did compared to what the French and the British managed with that technology.

If you want to find out in more detail this is the site and the book

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#China[/url]

Chase, Kenneth (2003), Firearms: A Global History to 1700, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521822742

The fact is Chinese used gunpowder in mines, rockets and created first firearms.

The mongols on their conquests took these inventions into Muslim lands. Muslims created the first guns for mass combat and first gunpowder artillery (Though some will argue there were variants already created by Chinese). By the time the technology reach Europeans it was already complete, Europeans just expanded on existing ideas to make it more efficient and deadly. Though Europeans really pushed the envelope and really expanded on what was there, it's hard to deny that there was an obvious evolution of technology that passed a number of cultures. It's highly unlikely Europeans would achieve what they achieved with it if they weren't already influenced by the eastern variants of the technology.

[Gribble]

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying--and I think this is what Indi's trying to say on a larger scale--that although it originated in China it wasn't until the Western world got hold of it that those weapons were refined and put to world-altering use.

[Mish]

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying--and I think this is what Indi's trying to say on a larger scale--that although it originated in China it wasn't until the Western world got hold of it that those weapons were refined and put to world-altering use.

Well what's a World altering use? It was used in a lot of conqeusts by Muslims all over the known world of the time. Is that not World altering use?

I would say invention of the chariot was world altering and even though it was invented by non Europeans as early as 3,000BC the first European use of it is only recorded in 1,400BC (16 centuries later). What does that say about the influence of European culture of all time?

[IndiReloaded]

Okay you admit what you said was biased? That works for me.

You are implying an 'unfairness', however. I'm not. You are looking for a deeper meaning than there is. A perceived slight where there is none. The data is what it is. I'm simply stating a fact:

Well, if you make a list of the most influential ideas of all time (to date), I'm afraid its very heavily weighted towards Western culture. That's really what I'm saying as regards Asian culture.

It is^. Too bad, again, if you don't LIKE it. Doesn't change a darn thing.

[IndiReloaded]

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying--and I think this is what Indi's trying to say on a larger scale--that although it originated in China it wasn't until the Western world got hold of it that those weapons were refined and put to world-altering use.

Give up Gribble. Mish wants to live in a dream world where everyone & everything is equal. He doesn't understand that were that goal actually achieved, it would be the death of the human species.

[AdminOnline]

hmm...which century are we talking about in now? gunpowder.. war horses? hehe..

*darn, that chinese babe in the ads look real pretty. Of course, who will put a ugly chinese girl for advertisement. *

[IndiReloaded]

Asian women ARE beautiful. But man, those mixes of african/asian are godesses. I like men, and even I think those women are gorgeous.

More reason to mix that DNA.

[Mish]

Give up Gribble. Mish wants to live in a dream world where everyone & everything is equal. He doesn't understand that were that goal actually achieved, it would be the death of the human species.

You are the one living in the dream world Indi. You have some strange idea of "most cultural influence of all time" (read cultural superiority) that you are trying to promote. It's not working, because there is no culture with the most amount of influence of all time. You don't have the facts to prove or even measurements to measure that which you are trying to promote and you already made your conclusions.


You know, I remember the time when RK made a post on Loveforum about Stormfront (a forum promoting white supremacy). I remember reading the thread he created where these people pounced on him just for being of Indian decent. I remember one of their members even saying something along the lines of "Yeh, and western culture is superior to all others because we have the best ideas and inventions of all time!!". And then a senior member of that forum cut him off and said "No! That's not true, there's no facts to support that and we shouldn't be saying things like that." It's very disappointing that someone from a racist forum understands the implications of saying something as big as this which is unfounded and unsupported by facts and yet someone very educated who I consider even a role model can't understand that distinction.

[doppelgaenger]

Lol someone here needs to go through a little history 101.

Anyways I agree with Mishka on the subject; there's no such thing as cultural superiority. America has only been so 'great' because of the outcome of the World Wars, and some of the consecutive wars. Every culture has had a great impact on civilization throughout the course of time.

[IndiReloaded]

"Yeh, and western culture is superior to all others because we have the best ideas and inventions of all time!!". And then a senior member of that forum cut him off and said "No! That's not true, there's no facts to support that and we shouldn't be saying things like that."

Neither of those ppl should be having that argument. The first speaker is making a sweeping statement that can't be verified without providing specific criteria. *I* did not do this. You assume much about what my next logical step might be in this.

The second person is trying to probably stop a more global argument from occurring. They are, however, correct that (based on how the first statement was made), that there are no facts to support that statement. "Best" is a subjective term in that particular case. Whether such a thing 'should be said' is something I don't really have a problem with. I think ALL things can be said, and ppl who are reasonable can argue their points.

That said, it might NOT be subjective if there was some specific criteria given for what "best" meant. Generally, however, it is a bad idea to claim 'superiority' of one culture over another, agreed (again, however, I didn't do this). The 'inferior' culture inevitably gets upset and will argue down to specifics instead of referring to what I said about gaussian distributions. So, even if its TRUE that one culture has, objectively, made more significant contributions they will still get upset by it. To that, I say: tough.

If other ppl are inspired by another cultures achievements, then they should work out what the factors might be that allowed for those advances to occur. So they can do it too & then, perhaps, add their distinctiveness to the next human progress.

I think I have a better handle on this issue than you realize. There IS a next logical step to what I'm saying, but I'm not going to be the one to say it. At present, it doesn't seem possible for humans to think this way. I try to deal in reality, Mish.

So, be disappointed in me all you like. I'm sure I'll get over it.

[Mish]

So, even if its TRUE that one culture has, objectively, made more significant contributions they will still get upset by it. To that, I say: tough.

And how do you measure the significance of contribution of one culture over the other? How do you measure the significance of the chariot over the significance say one of the things you posted The bible? Is the chariot or the bible more significant and provided more benefit to the world? What standard measurement are you going to use to work out this overall "benefit"? What unit are you going to reduce that standard measurement to and how are you going to judge it? What score are you going to give each one? I'm pretty sure some people will give five stars to either one or both. Which one of these people is going to be right or wrong according to you? And more importantly why should your measurement, your judgment and your score be recognized as valid over anyone elses?

[IndiReloaded]

Mish, I've already said as much as I'm going to on this for now. You know I love you, but I really think you are being a tad small minded about this.

Here's a simple exercise that I might use to quantify "contribution". This is just off the top of my head, mind, but I think it would be VERY interesting to do. Oh, and you'd have to give credit to the culture that made this analysis possible.

Make a 'wiring diagram' of the various cultures and their contributions to the development/advancement of other cultures. The greater the effect, the larger the connection. Invention is only one 'point' in the weighting, tho. Cultures that actually cause the development & spread of a concept also count.

I have a feeling that the Ancient Greek -----> Roman -----> English -----> American connections (i.e. Western) will be quite significant & will outweigh others by a significant margin. In fact, I'm certain of it.

If you want to call that racist or 'unfair', well shrug. To me, its just data. And, it would be interesting if I was wrong. So lets see.

Try it.