White Culture

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

So, White culture isn’t weak at all, but it's merely an accident of geography?

 

That appears to be what you are saying, yet it doesn't really agree with what you said previously.

 

White European culture in the late 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century developed a technological gap, due in part to accidents of geography, political development, disease resistance and other factors. A gap which is now narrowing.

 

This enabled white culture to, let's say defeat a tribe in another place due to technology. Should this be seen as "strength" of a culture?

 

Take China, who in the 19th century was carved up. China was weak technologically. Now China is strong technologically. Were the Chinese a weak culture in the 19th century because they did not have weapons that were technologically superior? The Chinese then were a weak culture, now today's Chinese are a strong culture? Do you see the problem with this?

 

How do you define a "strong" culture? Attainments of civilization? But these are not just technological. You could not just sump up each technological achievement, they are not all worth 1 point, these achievements differ greatly in significance. Does the invention of the Gatling Gun outrank the invention of the alphabet? Does the invention of Geometry outrank the invention of  the sniper rifle? If so by how much?

 

You are on much safer ground if you try to determine if a person is weak or strong. Physically and intellectually.

 

I am not saying for a minute that all people are equal, all cultures are equal, that's not the case obviously. Some people are stronger intellectually, physically, some races are stronger physically or intellectually.

 

But when it comes to "white culture" being "strong or weak" that's a very weak argument, you'd have to make it more precise.

 

What previous statement did you mean?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

 

Thais are  not more civilized or trustworthy than most European countries or other Asian countries even. They have many good qualities but those are not their strengths. Superior at what exactly?

 

In terms of civilized behaviour, when I enter a narrow hallway in the Virgin gym, and a Thai comes my way he does  a gesture of respect, smiles and moves to the side to let you pass. That, to me, is civilized behaviour. If it were England, there is no guarantee the conflict would be resolved in this civilized way.

 

In that sense Thais are more civilized, they are able to resolve issues without violence and aggression to a much greater degree than peole in the West. That is a sure sign of greater civilization.

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Thais and Thailand definitely have areas where they are better than other cultures, but to say they are more civilised or trustworthy is ridiculous.

 

Say what you want about Western countries, but they're clearly more honest (less likely to lie or scam, lower corruption, more likely to follow the rules/law) and more civilised (less racist, better educated, more empathic).

 

Thailand and Thai people are better than the West in many ways, but we shouldn't forget that there are many ways that rhe West is superior, also.

It's true that Westerners are more honest in every day life, but history would not indicate that the West is more trustworthy in absolute terms, see the actions of the English in the Indian reservations in America, during the famine in Bengal or the deceit of Russia regarding NATO expansion.

 

The West can be very deceptive und untrustworthy.

 

Clearly the West is better at following rules, which you could argue is a sign of weak culture.

 

Education,  yes possibly the West has an edge still, true.

[JimTripper]

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

In terms of civilized behaviour, when I enter a narrow hallway in the Virgin gym, and Thai comes my way he does  a gesture of respect, smiles and moves to the side to let you pass. That, to me, is civilized behaviour. If it were England, there is no guarantee the conflict would be resolved in this civilized way.

The question is what happens if he does not like you. Do you prefer a gentleman's duel or a pack of strangers (or a gang) coming in for a beat down. White culture is much more individualistic. They would tend to respect a gentleman's duel.

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

Exactly. There's a big backstory to their document and lots of media covering it. It's pretty infamous now.

 

What's happening is that America is showing serious cracks with its radical multicultural project to reduce the original population to a minority with non-white people from the 3rd world. They're learning in real time there's things like "Thai time" and now cultures are clashing.

 

Next time you try to hire a black person to meet your diversity quota you better not complain she's 30 minutes late on her first day. That's racist and the legacy of white supremacy. Also she deserves a raise bigot.

 

White Americans are finished unless they get on top of this real fast and gain some racial conscious. There's billions of people on the planet and they're going to keep coming until there's nothing left of the country.

 

This disregards one crucial point, the West has been stupid in allowing unbridled immigration from the LOWEST sectors of society. I can assure you I've worked in the most prestigious law firm in the world and there was a Sri Lankan Partner who could outsmart you easily, some black lawyers. White clients would come to them and pay 800 pounds per hour for their advice.

 

There are highly intelligent people in Pakistan, Turkey, Serbia, Russia, Mexico, Venezuela, however, if the West allows the lowest of the low stratas of those societies to immigrate you can't then say every black, Turk, Mexican etc is this way. They are not.

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, JimTripper said:

The question is what happens if he does not like you. Do you prefer a gentleman's duel or a pack of strangers coming in for a beat down.

 

That's a good point, though I would argue the West has indulged in mass bombing of civilians since the early 20th century, and the mowing down of natives with the Gatling gun in the 19th century. Chivalrous fighting has been discarded by the West for a long time. Even the Spaniards campaign in the New World was hardly chivalrous.

 

Chivalry is a nice ideal, but the West rarely lives up to it.

[Cameroni]

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

The downfall of the German automobile industry started with its embrace of of cutting production costs through shortcuts and  the embrace of cheaper parts with a built in obsolescence.   German auto workers were trained for years and labour was respected. No more. Today's products reflect that embrace of short term profit , of greed over quality and pride of workmanship. That's "White Western Culture" . 

 

 

The British did not start out as pirates. The reality is that all countries with a ocean going capability were equally given to piracy. It was Great Britain which helped put an end to international piracy, and in particular with the Dutch, brought peace to the South China Sea. The "White" culture of the British is what ensured that some semblance of security was put into effect to protect shipping routes and the passage of people without constant attack.

 

The accusations against the British as plagiarists and copyists (sic) is nonsense. The reality is that such behaviour was the norm throughout the developing world. We saw it with some of the great musical composers of all time where they often "borrowed" from  students or lesser musicians. We have seen it in scientific R&D where scientists often borrowed from others. The fact is that the activities were all in their own cultural sphere. No one was  copying or plagiarizing from the Arab world, or from Africa or from the Americas.

 

The greatest barrier to R&D is the ease of  Communication. Cultures that do not have a language basis that allows an ease in communicating and in disseminating complex concepts are at a disadvantage.  The Chinese language is vast and inconsistent.  The language relies on characters, which includes at least 50,000 characters, of which an estimated 10,000 are used in regular communication. Consider that the English and French alphabet has 26 letters, the German has 30, and the Russian alphabet 33 letters  and it becomes obvious why some cultures have been able to share information faster and to advance quickly. Vietnam is an excellent example. It changed to a Roman alphabet in the early 1900's and that is what laid the foundation to its development. Instead of relying on cumbersome chinese characters to  communicate with, the Vietnamese language could be communicated with a  simplified and consistent easy to master series of  29 letters that preserved and respected Vietnamese tones and cultural meanings.

 

You also ignore the fact that great scientific though requires a nurturing environment. The west offers its   innovaters a place to  think and live in freedom.  China cannot offer its scientists this, nor will it. One need only look at the disappearing scientists of China during Covid to understand that point.

 

The British empire did start out with a pirate, Francis Drake. The British were basically a bunch of pirates who kept stealing from the Spanish, this is how the British empire got started. Through piracy.

 

Did other nations also engage in piracy, of course, but let's not pretend the British empire did not start out as a bunch of pirates. It certainly did.

 

On the point of plagiarism, it did happen , but I accept that it was common place at the time. Nevertheless it is odd is it not, how when the Chinese copy something they're base copyists, but when a Brit demonstrates the TV using technology developed by Paul Nipkow, the Brit is a pioneer and feted as such. It's ludicrous.

 

The point of language is a good one, though of course German language was far more difficult than English but German academia prevailed in the 19th century nevertheless. However, we see with Tagalog today the problems that can be caused. 

 

In terms of the German autoindustry, if you want to drive the finest car, you'd still buy a Porsche Taycan if you buy electric, if you wanted the finest SUV you'd still buy the Mercedes GLS, and if you want the best luxury limousine you would still buy the Maybach. If money were no option. The problem is that German cars are very expensive and now people are more concerned about cheap rather quality. Germans have problem with this, since labour costs in Germany are exorbitantly high. In addition nobody makes bad cars anymore, even a KIA is excellent, so the competition just got a lot better. So the German auto industry has its problems, some home made like the energy crisis, but overall they still make the best cars. The knowledge gap German automakers have still helps them produce cars more reliably than Tesla or Chinese firms. How long that gap will persist is another question.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I would say that one issue is that we don't really get to see most of the downsides in Thailand, due to the fact that we are in a pretty good position.

 

One of the key differences between East and West is the rights of the individual.

 

In the West, the rights of the individual are put first, even where it is "bad" for the group. In the East, the rights of the group are out first, even where it is bad for the individual.

 

We're fortunate enough to not know how bad things can be in Thailand, as we are generally in the group living a reasonable life. We aren't particularly vulnerable.

I lived in a village where I was the only farang, 2 hours by bus from the closest town, and I didn't see any bad side to the locals, other than they used to gather under the house to gossip about the "farang".

[BangkokReady]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I lived in a village where I was the only farang, 2 hours by bus from the closest town, and I didn't see any bad side to the locals, other than they used to gather under the house to gossip about the "farang".

 

As I said.  Foreigners tend to not experience how bad things can really get for an individual in Thailand.

[BangkokReady]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Clearly the West is better at following rules, which you could argue is a sign of weak culture.

 

How on Earth would that be a sign of weak culture?  Rules are there to protect people and breaking them tends to put people in danger.

[BangkokReady]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

This enabled white culture to, let's say defeat a tribe in another place due to technology. Should this be seen as "strength" of a culture?

 

Should the globally dominant culture, who people from others cultures admire and wish to emulate, be considered a "strong" culture?  This seems like an odd question to ask.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

How on Earth would that be a sign of weak culture?  Rules are there to protect people and breaking them tends to put people in danger.

 

What kind of strength would following rules foster? How hard is it to follow rules?

 

It just doesn't seem like a sign of strength. Is it not in Chaos were true strength is found and tested?

 

Protecting people, avoiding danger...all virtues of the weak.

 

 

[Cameroni]

16 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Should the globally dominant culture, who people from others cultures admire and wish to emulate, be considered a "strong" culture?  This seems like an odd question to ask.

 

Well, the question I was raising was really, if you put a gun into the hand of a weak person, and that person then shoots 5 people, does that make the killer a "strong" person? Arguably the people he killed were stronger intellectually or physically. The killer just had the benefit of a technology gap.

 

Equally, in the realm of nations  (I prefer to use this than "cultures"), if a nation has a technological advantage and subjugates others, is this really a sign of strength or superiority? If the fighting arena is equal, and a winner prevails, then he can be said to be superior. However, if you put a gatling gun into his hand and he wins, is he actually superior or just the beneficiary of a technological gap?

 

Bear in mind also that at one point China was the dominant nation, at one point India, at one point Aztecs, I mean at one point Sumerians, these are all snapshots in time. Can we really extrapolate a unique strength to one of these nations?

 

If subjugation of other nations is the greatest sign of superiority are you then willing to admit the Mongolians as the master race?

[jayboy]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

I can assure you I've worked in the most prestigious law firm in the world

 

In what capacity?

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, jayboy said:

 

In what capacity?

 

As a capital markets lawyer.

[Nick Carter icp]

38 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Should the globally dominant culture, who people from others cultures admire and wish to emulate, be considered a "strong" culture?  This seems like an odd question to ask.

 

    I doubt that many Thais want to be like the White older Western mob in Pattaya or the rude obnoxious sex pats .

   They would like the ,money, but that's about it 

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

    I doubt that many Thais want to be like the White older Western mob in Pattaya or the rude obnoxious sex pats .

   They would like the ,money, but that's about it 

 

Well, he has a point that certain cultures, say the US, have an appeal that leads to emulation, there's plenty of Thais copying American pop culture, Lisa of Blackpink and my local buddy playing in a Heavy Metal band.

 

My daughter is starting to talk Korean from all the K-dramas. Does that make Korea a superior strong culture?

 

[Nick Carter icp]

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, he has a point that certain cultures, say the US, have an appeal that leads to emulation, there's plenty of Thais copying American pop culture, Lisa of Blackpink and my local buddy playing in a Heavy Metal band.

 

My daughter is starting to talk Korean from all the K-dramas. Does that make Korea a superior strong culture?

 

 

   Aren't many Thais emulating Korean culture , isnt Lisa Blackpink part of the K-pop genre . K-pop being Korean pop .

   Heavy metal music also isn't American Music .

I don't see any USA culture in Thailand 

[zakalwe]

7 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Aren't many Thais emulating Korean culture , isnt Lisa Blackpink part of the K-pop genre . K-pop being Korean pop .

   Heavy metal music also isn't American Music .

I don't see any USA culture in Thailand 

Huh? Rock and roll in the bars, hamburger joints and most of the movies playing in Thailand are American.

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Well, the question I was raising was really, if you put a gun into the hand of a weak person, and that person then shoots 5 people, does that make the killer a "strong" person?

 

That isn't what is being discussed.  We're talking about the strength of a culture.  That doesn't require any force, now.

[BangkokReady]

43 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

I doubt that many Thais want to be like the White older Western mob in Pattaya or the rude obnoxious sex pats .

 

Well, that isn't really an example of "White culture".  There are rude, pissed up old Thai men as well.

 

You sound like you don't fully understand how dominant Western culture is.

 

The Thais you see who don't want to be like drunken expats do actually copy their clothes, their education system, their architecture, and a lot of them would like to have their democracy.

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

That isn't what is being discussed.  We're talking about the strength of a culture.  That doesn't require any force, now.

 

But it does, you spoke of "dominant" culture. The only reason American culture is dominant now is because Russia defeated the Wehrmacht in 1945. If the US had not come out of WWII as the victor would it be the dominant culture today? Probably not.

 

If the British Empire dominated other nations, then really due to the technological advantage of their weapons

 

So I think the analogy is pretty solid, These nations that did become dominant became so through the use of force, which was possible because of a technology gap that gave them an edge. 

 

 

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

What kind of strength would following rules foster? How hard is it to follow rules?

 

How could a rule-following culture be stronger than a non-rule-following one?

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

It just doesn't seem like a sign of strength. Is it not in Chaos were true strength is found and tested?

 

You don't actually seem to be talking about what everyone else is talking about.  You appear to be talking about the physical toughness of a culture.  This doesn't really make sense and isn't the topic here.

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Protecting people, avoiding danger...all virtues of the weak.

 

Good for the strength of a culture though.

[BangkokReady]

Just now, Cameroni said:

But it does, you spoke of "dominant" culture.

 

Exactly.  That isn't what you are talking about.  Dominant as in it is favoured and followed more than any other single culture is.  E.g.  "Dominant opinion" means the opinion that most people have, not an opinion that can beat up other opinions...

 

I'm not sure why you're trying to conflate something being physically strong.  You're not really making any sense.  🤷‍♂️

[BangkokReady]

23 minutes ago, zakalwe said:

Huh? Rock and roll in the bars, hamburger joints and most of the movies playing in Thailand are American.

 

Didn't you notice that most Thai people walk around wearing hanboks and eating kimchi while using Korean slang and loan words???

[Inderpland]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

As a capital markets lawyer.

Wow, that's a fancy name to give a janitor!

[Inderpland]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

What kind of strength would following rules foster? How hard is it to follow rules?

 

It just doesn't seem like a sign of strength. Is it not in Chaos were true strength is found and tested?

 

Protecting people, avoiding danger...all virtues of the weak.

 

 

You forget the fact that if it wasn't for this protection you'd be dead a looong time ago.

[BangkokReady]

I think one of the problems you get when talking about "White/Western culture", is that it is so dominant that people don't even notice it.  It's basically just become "normal".  So people wear Western clothes, use Western inventions, speak Western words, eat Western food, live in Western houses, but they think this is just "normal".  Then say that there is no Western culture.

[Cameroni]

Just now, BangkokReady said:

 

How could a rule-following culture be stronger than a non-rule-following one?

 

 

You don't actually seem to be talking about what everyone else is talking about.  You appear to be talking about the physical toughness of a culture.  This doesn't really make sense and isn't the topic here.

 

 

Good for the strength of a culture though.

 

I think, clearly what is required, is to define more precisely what the term "dominant culture" or the term "cultural superiority"  is supposed to refer to.

 

Clearly, my view is that the dominant status of American culture today is a result of the US emerging victorious in a war. The entire edifice of culture is built on weapons, without the need for weapons there would be no larger brain, and no culture to speak of really. In fact weapons themselves are an expression of culture. 

 

However, the question is does the development of an H bomb say, weigh more heavily in the scales of culture than the development of an alphabet?

 

The author of the Bell Curve, Charles Murray, wrote the book "Human Accomplishment", to try and rank cultures based on accomplishment. Despite his own brilliance, and his brilliant previous work, Murray had some difficulty in ranking cultures by accomplishments. i read the book, and it is far less convincing than the Bell Curve, and received a lot of criticism.

[BangkokReady]

Just now, Inderpland said:

You forget the fact that if it wasn't for this protection you'd be dead a looong time ago.

 

I think he forgets that we're not actually talking about the physical toughness of a culture.  One culture doesn't beat up another culture to become dominant.