Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Did the British take the Boer viewpoint in account?

So, for the purposes of this discussion, Native American views aren't considered part of the 'American cause'?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

So, for the purposes of this discussion, Native American views aren't considered part of the 'American cause'?

For the scope of the discussion, I think that is reasonable. I'm not certain that the native american view on Benedict Arnold's trustworthyness is overly relevant...

[HarryT]

Unfortunately, I don't think that indigenous peoples were really regarded even as properly "human" by any Europeans at that time. Certainly, the record of British colonisation in Australia and South Africa is nothing to be proud of in that regard.

Interestingly, Sir Henry Rider Haggard, whose books I so admire, was regarded as an ultra-reactionary in his time, because he spoke up for the rights of native African peoples, such as the Zulu, to govern themselves without interference from colonial authorities.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If there was to be a distinction between the perceived differences between two generalizations, I have used the "caricatures" of both regions to work with. What is the American caricature? The classic small-government rugged individualist, who fears government running their lives. Does this include everyone in America? No. Are there similar small-government rugged individualists in Europe? Yes, although I suspect they are much fewer that in America.

I don't accept that it's possible to have a meaningful discussion of cultural differences based on caricatures. In fact, I thought the point of this topic was to get past such over-generalizations, and try to understand each other better. I guess you really do stand by the quote in your sig line.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

As far as having an ax to grind, I do. I will explicitly describe it, for the benefit of the readers. I have no problem with other people organizing themselves as they see fit. I get tired to death of other people determining they are going to organize me to their whims. So when someone explains how good it would be if everybody does X for reason Y, I get annoyed. I have no use for urbanites, who I suspect have no real grasp of the resource chain, trying in insist upon law changes that make sense for their limited environs, but that will be an utter disaster for large groups of other peoples, I get aggrevated. And when said people tell me to shut up (not you, NekoChan) because I (obviously) don't understand modern realities, I get incensed. Finally, when I see the same politicans who caused major economic disasters still in power and fawned upon, I get disgusted.

Similarly, when I read someone defending short-sighted strategies in the name of individual liberty, I also get frustrated. My view of the resource chain includes the living and working conditions of those who perform the labor that the "modern" standard of living depends on. Does yours? (Not a rhetorical question.)

I'm part Cherokee. To me, the "American experiment" you're so fond of entailed one group seizing resources from another group, with no better justification than the historical accident that gave them access to more advanced weapons. If we want to include a historical perspective in this discussion of cultures, we need to include the less savory side of history as well. And I'm not saying that various countries now in the EU don't also have dark sides to their pasts-- it might be helpful to examine the contrasts and comparisons of these negatives as part of our discussion of cultural differences.

Or, we can settle for "I'm entitled to my opinion, and nothing you say can change my mind!" In which case, I think I'll spend my time in other threads.

[wodin]

It is sad commentary on my ancestors that wherever fifteenth through eighteenth century Europeans settled the indigenous peoples suffered. Some, as is the case with the Incas nearly to the point of extinction.

[nekokami]

Interesting article here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...69&ft=1&f=1006

One of the professors interviewed in this story works in my building. Sensible guy.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Interesting article here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...69&ft=1&f=1006

One of the professors interviewed in this story works in my building. Sensible guy.

Well, here's the structural problem (from a dumb redneck's prejudices)...

Since the early 1980's and the ready advent of computing power, there has been a mindset on "Wall Street" that if you just mix the right set of derivative assets, you can make a small amount of money risk free!

Now in a broad sense, this is impossible, as risk never goes away. But when these people invent a new set of a derivative mix, they keep believing that this one will work.

So every new invention that gets used, it gets a huge amount of money poured through the "Magic Potion" to make the "Risk Free" money. The more money available to pour through, the bigger the bang when reality finally catches up with the "Magic Potion".

This caused the crash of 1987 (portfolio insurance), tha Asia crisis of 1997 (various currency derivative strategies) and the current mortgage crisis (2007) (credit default swaps).

This is why we've had so many "black swans" lately. Nobody wants to admit you can't get rid of risk. They just keep mixing a new "potion"....

So far, either nobody has figured this out, or (much more likely) nobody wants to explain why we've been having so many collapses...

RSE

[Ea]

Originally Posted by wodin

It is sad commentary on my ancestors that wherever fifteenth through eighteenth century Europeans settled the indigenous peoples suffered. Some, as is the case with the Incas nearly to the point of extinction.

Don't you mean the Aztec? I mean, the Inca's army was wiped out, but as far as I have been able to see, the native Indian culture in the Andes is still quite marked, though of course mixed with European culture and religion.

[HarryT]

I believe that was largely through disease, wasn't it, rather than deliberate policies of "genocide"? Unfortunately, many native populations were decimated by diseases such as smallpox, to which they had no immunity, on first contact with European explorers.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This is why we've had so many "black swans" lately. Nobody wants to admit you can't get rid of risk. They just keep mixing a new "potion"....

So far, either nobody has figured this out, or (much more likely) nobody wants to explain why we've been having so many collapses...

Hey, we agree on something! I think that's pretty much what the people interviewed were saying, too, though not in exactly those words.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by wodin

It is sad commentary on my ancestors that wherever fifteenth through eighteenth century Europeans settled the indigenous peoples suffered. Some, as is the case with the Incas nearly to the point of extinction.

I'm not so certain that's true. I think more assimilation happened in North America than anyone realizes. Did you know that the Commonwealth of Virginia has recognized 8 Indian tribes? Seven other tribes are currently seeking recognition.


There are times where I wonder if some of the major differences between American and European culture come not from being a frontier, but were inherited from the Native Americans.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Ea

Don't you mean the Aztec? I mean, the Inca's army was wiped out, but as far as I have been able to see, the native Indian culture in the Andes is still quite marked, though of course mixed with European culture and religion.

Yes, them too, and the Tahitians, and the Maori, and the Navajo, and the Zulu, and the Hawaiians and ... and ... and.

In no case did indigenous culture or religion survive the coming of the missionaries intact. Some suffered more than others.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I believe that was largely through disease, wasn't it, rather than deliberate policies of "genocide"? Unfortunately, many native populations were decimated by diseases such as smallpox, to which they had no immunity, on first contact with European explorers.

AFAIK that is certainly true of the Aztec, and in general the Middle American and North American native peoples. The peoples of the Andes less so, though of course oppression were taking place, also today. But they were far from wiped out.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Hey, we agree on something! I think that's pretty much what the people interviewed were saying, too, though not in exactly those words.

But it's not going to affect the finance world for at least 10 years after the concept "risk never goes away" is tatooed on every MBA's forehead...

Which I expect will occur on Feb 30'th 2600....

[Ea]

Originally Posted by wodin

Yes, them too, and the Tahitians, and the Maori, and the Navajo, and the Zulu, and the Hawaiians and ... and ... and.

In no case did indigenous culture or religion survive the coming of the missionaries intact. Some suffered more than others.

Okay. It's just that I think the peoples of the Inca empire probably is not the best example. At least not if you want *intact*, but then you could say that a good part of the culture and religion of Northern Europe didn't survive the meeting with the missionaries either A difference being that the indians are still 'underdogs'.