West and the Rest- A discourse with Yasmina, Gladstonezai, and faye

[Toramana]

"First of all, look at the facts of the case. Western nations as soon as they emerge into history show the beginnings of those capacities for self-government . . . having merits of their own. . . . You may look through the whole history of the Orientals in what is called, broadly speaking, the East, and you never find traces of self-government. All their great centuries—and they have been very great—have been passed under despotisms, under absolute govern-ment. All their great contributions to civilisation—and they have been great—have been made under that form of government. Conqueror has succeeded conqueror; one domination
has followed another; but never in all the revolutions of fate and fortune have you seen one of those nations of its own motion establish what we, from a Western point of view, call self-government. That is the fact. It is not a question of superiority and inferiority. I suppose a true Eastern sage would say that the working government which we have taken upon ourselves in Egypt and elsewhere is not a work worthy of a philosopher—that it is the dirty work, the inferior work, of carrying on the necessary labour."

Since these facts are facts, Balfour must then go on to the next part of his argument.

"Is it a good thing for these great nations—I admit their greatness —that this absolute government should be exercised by us? I think it is a good thing. I think that experience shows that they have got under it far better government than in the whole history of the world they ever had before, and which not only is a benefit to them, but is undoubtedly a benefit to the whole of the civilised West.... We are in Egypt not merely for the sake of the Egyptians, though we are there for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at large"

Balfour produces no evidence that Egyptians and "the races with whom we deal" appreciate or even understand the good that is being done them by colonial occupation. It does not occur to Balfour, however, to let the Egyptian speak for himself, since presumably any Egyptian who would speak out is more likely to be "the agitator [who] wishes to raise difficulties" than the good native who overlooks the "difficulties" of foreign domination. And so, having settled the ethical problems, Balfour turns at last to the practical ones. "If it is our business to govern, with or
without gratitude, with or without the real and genuine memory of all the loss of which we have relieved the population [Balfour by no means implies, as part of that loss, the loss or at least the indefinite postponement of Egyptian independence] and no vivid imagination of all the benefits which we have given to them; if that is our duty, how is it to be performed?" England exports "our very best to these countries." These selfless administrators do their work "amidst tens of thousands of persons belonging to a different creed, a different race, a different discipline, different conditions of life."

Unlike Balfour, whose theses on Orientals pretended to objective universality, Cromer spoke about Orientals specifically as what he had ruled or had to deal with, first in India, then for the twenty-five years in Egypt during which he emerged as the paramount consul-general in England's empire. Balfour's "Orientals" are Cromer's "subject races," which he made the topic of a long essay published in the Edinburgh Review in January 1908. Once again, knowledge of subject races or Orientals is what makes their management easy and profitable; knowledge gives
power, more power requires more knowledge, and so on in an increasingly profitable dialectic of information and control. Cromer's notion is that England's empire will not dissolve if such things as militarism and commercial egotism at home and "free institutions" in the colony (as opposed to British government "according to the Code of Christian morality") are kept in check. For if, according to Cromer, logic is something "the existence of which the Oriental is disposed altogether to ignore," the proper method of ruling is not to impose ultrascientific measures upon him or to force him bodily to accept logic. It is rather to understand his limitations and "endeavor to find, in the contentment of the subject race, a more worthy and, it may be hoped, a stronger bond of union between the rulers and the ruled."

."

[Toramana]

"To be more explicit, what is meant when it is said that the commercial spirit should be under some control is this—that in deal-ing with Indians or Egyptians, or Shilluks, or Zulus, the first question is to consider what these people, who are all, nationally speaking, more or less in statu pupillari, themselves think is best in their own interests, although this is a point which deserves serious consideration. But it is essential that each special issue should be decided mainly with reference to what, by the light of Western knowledge and experience tempered by local considerations, we conscientiously think is best for the subject race, without reference to any real or supposed advantage which may accrue to England as a nation, or—as is more frequently the case—to the special interests represented by some one or more influential classes of Englishmen. If the British nation as a whole persistently bears this principle in mind, and insists sternly on its application, though we can never create a patriotism akin to that based on affinity of race or community of language, we may perhaps foster some sort of cosmopolitan allegiance grounded on the respect always ac-corded to superior talents and unselfish conduct, and on the gratitude derived both from favours conferred and from those to come. There may then at all events be some hope that the Egyptian will hesitate before he throws in his lot with any future Arabi. . . . Even the Central African savage may eventually learn to chant a hymn in honour of Astraea Redux, as represented by the British official who denies him gin but gives him justice. More than this, commerce will gain. "

[Toramana]

"Sir Alfred Lyall once said to me: "Accuracy is abhorrent to the Oriental mind. Every Anglo-Indian should always remember that maxim." Want of accuracy, which easily degenerates into untruth-fulness, is in fact the main characteristic of the Oriental mind. The European is a close reasoner; his statements of fact are devoid of any ambiguity; he is a natural logician, albeit he may not have studied logic; he is by nature sceptical and requires proof before he can accept the truth of any proposition; his trained intelligence works like a piece of mechanism. The mind of the Oriental, on the other hand, like his picturesque streets, is eminently wanting in symmetry. His reasoning is of the most slipshod description. Although the ancient Arabs acquired in a somewhat higher degree the science of dialectics, their descendants are singularly deficient in the logical faculty. They are often incapable of drawing the most obvious conclusions from any simple premises of which they may admit the truth. Endeavor to elicit a plain statement of facts from any ordinary Egyptian. His explanation will generally be lengthy, and wanting in lucidity. He will probably contradict himself half-a-dozen times before he has finished his story. He will often break down under the mildest process of cross-examination. Orientals or Arabs are thereafter shown to be gullible, "devoid of energy and initiative," much given to "fulsome flattery," intrigue, cunning, and unkindness to animals; Orientals cannot walk on either a road or a pavement (their disordered minds fail to under-stand what the clever European grasps immediately, that roads and pavements are made for walking); Orientals are inveterate liars, they are "lethargic and suspicious," and in everything oppose the clarity, directness, and nobility of the Anglo-Saxon race.*"

[faye]

lol @ that last bit about the pavements and the roads.

superiority complexes are such destructive delusions. useful as justification for wars and colonisation.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Ironically the author who wrote this contradicts themselves; on one hand speaking of self governance and another hand citing a colonial administrator who was trying to scrutinize Orientals on account they they don't abide by the English dictates. It's clearly apparent that the objective of the writing was to manufacture some justification for their colonial ventures and activities. It is probably far from the truth because all of these cultures had working infrastructure, systems of regulation and methodology for practical works like engineering or agriculture. What they did lack was innovation but the English too were in dregs for over 1000 years while their oriental counterparts were innovating. So clearly logic and reason were not properties of the East or West but manifestations of social trends associated with certain needs and movements.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Altough materialism is great in the West but its not bigger than what it is in the East. And by the way Western culture is more that just flashy cars and expensive cofee, Western culture has also produced great thinkers and philosophers, and not to forget the countless inventions.....

Bringing up just one negative aspect of peopels culture and than saying thats how West is, is wrong, its like saying that Pashtuns can only produce radicalls and taliban, and are not capable of making art, music and poetry.

then why are the West the largest consumers of resources?

I agree that the West cannot simply be encapsulated by "Materialism" nor can the East be described as a race of Noble Spiritual Monks engrossed in meditation, but to say it is "no bigger than the East" is plainly inaccurate.

[Khostai]

then why are the West the largest consumers of resources?

I agree that the West cannot simply be encapsulated by "Materialism" nor can the East be described as a race of Noble Spiritual Monks engrossed in meditation, but to say it is "no bigger than the East" is plainly inaccurate.

Thats simple, its just becuase they have more money to spend :P.

Look at Japan and China and the upcoming Indonesie, aren't they large consumers, and China consume each year more and more, becuase they have more to spend. And what about India, its consuming is also growing, becuae peopel now have more to spend on products.

And by the way you, and I also guess Tjanaparh lives in the West. Is your consuming behaviour that difrent form the mainstream European? Or a Westerner? Are you all materialistic now?

I don't think you are materialistic, if peopel have more money they will consume more, less money they will consume less. Its how human nature is, And not becuase West is materialitic and East not, West has more money, and now with the recession, you hear on the news that peopel consume and spend lesser, is this becuase they are now sudenly less materialistic? Or is it becuase they have less money to spend?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Thats simple, its just becuase they have more money to spend :P.

Look at Japan and China and the upcoming Indonesie, aren't they large consumers, and China consume each year more and more, becuase they have more to spend. And what about India, its consuming is also growing, becuae peopel now have more to spend on products.

And by the way you, and I also guess Tjanaparh lives in the West. Is your consuming behaviour that difrent form the mainstream European? Or a Westerner? Are you all materialistic now?

I don't think you are materialistic, if peopel have more money they will consume more, less money they will consume less. Its how human nature is, And not becuase West is materialitic and East not, West has more money, and now with the recession, you hear on the news that peopel consume and spend lesser, is this becuase they are now sudenly less materialistic? Or is it becuase they have less money to spend?

That's not very simple at all, having more money doesn't necessarily mean you will spend or consume exorbitantly. Many well off people do just the opposite.

Personally I'm NOT materialistic, but as a culture I'm apart of a very materialistiic society; because materialism is a very specific "idea" which centers on the idea that consumption is the most prized virtue. I believe in optimalization; having enough as needed to maintain health, security and longevity and very moderate degree of entertainment. Materialism disregards that and centralizes on excess.

Your example of China, Japan and Indonesia work against your argument than for it; because you're right THEY are burgeoning; but what sets them apart is that they don't WASTE their resources; they apply their resources constructively and sensibly

You hear in the news people spend less.... I think the maybe the word consume is what I should not have used ....I actually meant the West WASTES the most resources. Resources are squandered needlessly to sustain unnecessarily lavish accomodations. So no spending less doesn't make it "Less Materialistic" what it means is that they're still materialistic but still BAD and excessive wastefulness, because they still spend and waste money for excesses, the "spending" less is in respects to the degree of excess

So yes the West is predominantly wasteful; individual westerners may NOT be but as a culture it is wasteful and that is one of the consequences of Materialism And thus the claim that it is no bigger or worse than the East is just not true. It is MULTITUDES worse. This doesn't mean the Materalistic attitudes Don't exist in the East; but it still hasn't become predominant and even then that materialism is just to IMITATE the West.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

"First of all, look at the facts of the case. Western nations as soon as they emerge into history show the beginnings of those capacities for self-government . . . having merits of their own. . . . You may look through the whole history of the Orientals in what is called, broadly speaking, the East, and you never find traces of self-government. All their great centuries—and they have been very great—have been passed under despotisms, under absolute govern-ment. All their great contributions to civilisation—and they have been great—have been made under that form of government. Conqueror has succeeded conqueror; one domination
has followed another; but never in all the revolutions of fate and fortune have you seen one of those nations of its own motion establish what we, from a Western point of view, call self-government. That is the fact. It is not a question of superiority and inferiority. I suppose a true Eastern sage would say that the working government which we have taken upon ourselves in Egypt and elsewhere is not a work worthy of a philosopher—that it is the dirty work, the inferior work, of carrying on the necessary labour."

Since these facts are facts, Balfour must then go on to the next part of his argument.

"Is it a good thing for these great nations—I admit their greatness —that this absolute government should be exercised by us? I think it is a good thing. I think that experience shows that they have got under it far better government than in the whole history of the world they ever had before, and which not only is a benefit to them, but is undoubtedly a benefit to the whole of the civilised West.... We are in Egypt not merely for the sake of the Egyptians, though we are there for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at large"

Balfour produces no evidence that Egyptians and "the races with whom we deal" appreciate or even understand the good that is being done them by colonial occupation. It does not occur to Balfour, however, to let the Egyptian speak for himself, since presumably any Egyptian who would speak out is more likely to be "the agitator [who] wishes to raise difficulties" than the good native who overlooks the "difficulties" of foreign domination. And so, having settled the ethical problems, Balfour turns at last to the practical ones. "If it is our business to govern, with or
without gratitude, with or without the real and genuine memory of all the loss of which we have relieved the population [Balfour by no means implies, as part of that loss, the loss or at least the indefinite postponement of Egyptian independence] and no vivid imagination of all the benefits which we have given to them; if that is our duty, how is it to be performed?" England exports "our very best to these countries." These selfless administrators do their work "amidst tens of thousands of persons belonging to a different creed, a different race, a different discipline, different conditions of life."

Unlike Balfour, whose theses on Orientals pretended to objective universality, Cromer spoke about Orientals specifically as what he had ruled or had to deal with, first in India, then for the twenty-five years in Egypt during which he emerged as the paramount consul-general in England's empire. Balfour's "Orientals" are Cromer's "subject races," which he made the topic of a long essay published in the Edinburgh Review in January 1908. Once again, knowledge of subject races or Orientals is what makes their management easy and profitable; knowledge gives
power, more power requires more knowledge, and so on in an increasingly profitable dialectic of information and control. Cromer's notion is that England's empire will not dissolve if such things as militarism and commercial egotism at home and "free institutions" in the colony (as opposed to British government "according to the Code of Christian morality") are kept in check. For if, according to Cromer, logic is something "the existence of which the Oriental is disposed altogether to ignore," the proper method of ruling is not to impose ultrascientific measures upon him or to force him bodily to accept logic. It is rather to understand his limitations and "endeavor to find, in the contentment of the subject race, a more worthy and, it may be hoped, a stronger bond of union between the rulers and the ruled."

."

I take exception to the author's declaration of "self governance." His viewpoint reeks of orientalism and has been thoroughly debunked by Edward Said amongst others.

There are nuances he chooses to ignore. Scimitar touched on one of the hypocritical statements this author makes - regarding the fact that they were not allowing their colonies the right to local self governance.

I am going to jump ahead many centuries from the magna carta to the premiere example of western secular democratic capitalist - ala the United States of America as a basis for what I will offer up for discussion.

What I posit is that the governmental structure and system that is called "democratic rule by and for the people" as actually perpetual rule by the elites wherein the semblance or illusion of "self rule" is there and offers some stability. I want to take special pains to not sound like a Marxist because I am not alleging that the wealthy upper class is coincident with the elite - that is not always the case.

I will let the more qualified elder physician statesman and constitutionalist, Ron Paul make my argument for me:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...-party-system/

Paul's point is that there may be some degree of domestic variations between the democratic and republication parties but in reality when one looks at some of the more pressing domestic issues they often vote in tandem or end up usurping the aspirations of the masses. Therefore, this is not self governance. He says as follows:

I look at it that there are people who are very, very powerful that are able to make sure their interests are protected– whether it’s the people who run the Federal Reserve and bail out banks, and bail out European banks… Right now, they have their two guys there– believe me.
“Why does Obama not attack Romney for not being the Goldman Sachs candidate? It’s because they both are within the establishment where they need the Federal Reserve and the lender of last resort to make sure that you can take all the risk in the world, but don’t sweat it, because government will be there, and the Fed will be there, and they’re going to get bailed out. “

And this is actually very very true. He goes on to note:

“I’ve been in this business a long time and believe me there is essentially no difference from one administration to another no matter what the platforms…The foreign policy stays the same, the monetary policy stays the same, there’s no proposal for any real cuts and both parties support it.”

A practical example is the approach elected officials took to the economic bailout here in the USA.

Walter Shapiro writes regarding the TARP/Bailout vote:

"While the legislative route through the House was terrifyingly bumpy, the lopsided 74-to-25 vote in the Senate reflected the establishment consensus, with Barack Obama and John McCain, plus Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, all voting yes."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08...st-anger-over/

This vote went on despite the public's near militant response to the program:







Protests opposing the bailout occurred in over 100 cities across the United States on Thursday September 25.[71] Grassroots group TrueMajority said its members organized over 251 events in more than 41 states.[72] The largest gathering has been in New York City, where more than 1,000 protesters gathered near the New York Stock Exchange along with labor union members organized by New York Central Labor Council.[73][74] Other grassroots groups have planned rallies to protest against the bailout,[75] while outraged citizens continue to express their opposition online through blogs and dedicated web sites.[76]

• In a survey conducted September 19–22 by the Pew Research Center, by a margin of 57 percent to 30 percent, Americans supported the bailout when asked "As you may know, the government is potentially investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure. Do you think this is the right thing or the wrong thing for the government to be doing?"[77]
• In a survey conducted September 19–22 by Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times, by a margin of 55 percent to 31 percent, Americans opposed the bailout when asked whether "the government should use taxpayers' dollars to rescue ailing private financial firms whose collapse could have adverse effects on the economy and market, or is it not the government's responsibility to bail out private companies with taxpayers' dollars?".[78][79]
• In a survey conducted September 24 by USA Today/Gallup, when asked "As you may know, the Bush administration has proposed a plan that would allow the Treasury Department to buy and re-sell up to $700 billion of distressed assets from financial companies. What would you like to see Congress do?", 56 percent of respondents wanted Congress to pass a plan different from the original Paulson proposal, 22 percent supported the Paulson proposal in its initial form, and 11 percent wanted Congress to take no action.[80]
• Senator Sherrod Brown said he had been getting 2,000 e-mail messages and telephone calls a day, roughly 95 percent opposed.[81]
• As of Thursday September 25, Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) offices had received a total of 39,180 e-mails, calls and letters on the bailout, with the overwhelming majority of constituents against it.[74]

Even at the state level, third parties are expunged or blocked from having a meaningful role:

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2...d-party-candi/

The top-two system also means third party candidates are effectively shut out at the state level. The ballot does not include any Green Party candidates below the presidential ticket. There are three members of the Peace and Freedom Party running for the state Legislature. Four Congressional races and one Assembly race include candidates without a party preference.
The Green Party’s Michael Feinstein believes the new system will distort how popular a candidate may be.
“They used to say how Saddam Hussein used to win 99 percent in the elections and we all knew what a joke that was," Feinstein said. "Well, what the top two does is produce a false majority."

Regarding the foreign policy that is slowly draining American prestige, Michael Scheuer also makes sure to supplement what Paul says by noting:

This Tuesday’s Romney-Obama foreign-policy debate will again show Americans that both political parties mean to maintain the lie that has kept the United States losing the war al-Qaeda and its allies declared on us in 1996. There will seem to be debate during the debate, but at day’s end there will be no difference between Romney and Obama: America is “exceptional,” and exceptionally entitled to intervene in other peoples’ affairs; what we do in the world is well-intentioned and benign; and Islamist militants are attacking us because they hate freedom, liberty, and Budweiser. In other words, both men will implicitly tell Americans that their government will not recognize the seriousness of our war with the Islamists, let alone that we are losing that war – hands down.

Esteemed academic professor Andrew Bacevich also disputes the evolution or even proper implemention of a government "for and by the people" by writing about the evolution of an imperial presidency:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/bl...residency.html

"The Congress, especially with regard to matters related to national security policy, has thrust power and authority to the executive branch. We have created an imperial presidency. The Congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good. The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress...

In summary, the US constitional governance envisioned by Jefferson and Washington (even early in American history) devolved into governance by the elites.

The same phenomena is going on in France right now, the supposed land of fraternity, equality, and liberty is shoving elite/liberal values down the throat of the majority rural country side devout roman Catholic French:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-8231622.html

"The issue has turned into a potential political minefield for both government and opposition. Homosexuality is broadly accepted in urban France but prejudice is still rife in rural areas and on the Catholic and conservative right."

By that same token, Hollande's platform was to run as the anti war, anti Sarkozy option, but his recent escalations in Africa have shown that whatever the elites have in mind, they will do irrespective of the will of the people.

Therefore, I think this cited writer is trying to display a hidden air of smug superiority by offering some platitudes here and there but then claiming that representative governance is a European/Western invention whereas the East has been marred in the rule of strongmen.

I would say that the only thing he can claim is that the "strong men" just got smarter in the West and created a ruse, a mirage, a smoke and mirrors bit that enhances general stability by making the public think they have a choice. In reality, western democracy has devolved into a team sports zero sum game while in reality both are playing the same game of football.

In the words of Keyser Soze from The Usual Suspects,:

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist."

In a sense, what the author should brag about is that he and his elites continue living like the strongmen, monarchs, and rulers of the past but have convinced the locals that they "do not exist" aka it is "the people's rule:"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...857_story.html

But covering that up by injecting some upward mobility into the fray so that every now and then a Clinton from Hope Arkansas can surface amongst the Kennedys and Bush's. And they also manufacture the illusion of choice while excluding real choice:
http://www.examiner.com/article/romn...aul-ineligible

The other confounders are that most western nations are autonomous, have drawn their own borders, and smaller populations generally... making biological predispositions to stability more likely irrespective of whatever governmental system they have in place.

[Toramana]

Thats simple, its just becuase they have more money to spend :P.

Look at Japan and China and the upcoming Indonesie, aren't they large consumers, and China consume each year more and more, becuase they have more to spend. And what about India, its consuming is also growing, becuae peopel now have more to spend on products.

And by the way you, and I also guess Tjanaparh lives in the West. Is your consuming behaviour that difrent form the mainstream European? Or a Westerner? Are you all materialistic now?

I don't think you are materialistic, if peopel have more money they will consume more, less money they will consume less. Its how human nature is, And not becuase West is materialitic and East not, West has more money, and now with the recession, you hear on the news that peopel consume and spend lesser, is this becuase they are now sudenly less materialistic? Or is it becuase they have less money to spend?

That is over-simplification. One should look at per-capita consumption not what the whole nation consumes---Obviously, China has a population of 1300 millions.

Nations and countries will consume what they would want to(inevitability). The real point is equality and parity.

[Khostai]

That's not very simple at all, having more money doesn't necessarily mean you will spend or consume exorbitantly. Many well off people do just the opposite.

Personally I'm NOT materialistic, but as a culture I'm apart of a very materialistiic society; because materialism is a very specific "idea" which centers on the idea that consumption is the most prized virtue. I believe in optimalization; having enough as needed to maintain health, security and longevity and very moderate degree of entertainment. Materialism disregards that and centralizes on excess.

Your example of China, Japan and Indonesia work against your argument than for it; because you're right THEY are burgeoning; but what sets them apart is that they don't WASTE their resources; they apply their resources constructively and sensibly

You hear in the news people spend less.... I think the maybe the word consume is what I should not have used ....I actually meant the West WASTES the most resources. Resources are squandered needlessly to sustain unnecessarily lavish accomodations. So no spending less doesn't make it "Less Materialistic" what it means is that they're still materialistic but still BAD and excessive wastefulness, because they still spend and waste money for excesses, the "spending" less is in respects to the degree of excess

So yes the West is predominantly wasteful; individual westerners may NOT be but as a culture it is wasteful and that is one of the consequences of Materialism And thus the claim that it is no bigger or worse than the East is just not true. It is MULTITUDES worse. This doesn't mean the Materalistic attitudes Don't exist in the East; but it still hasn't become predominant and even then that materialism is just to IMITATE the West.

Hmm if you put it that way, than Arabs, who are also easterners are the bigest wastefull peopel on the planet, they build the tallest skyscraper for what??? Nothing actualy, and all those hotels and luxury cars and not to forget the food that they waste....Trilion petro dollars are just wasted on uselles things, when Somalia, where peopel die from hunger, is just around the corner.

At least Europe is trying to get more greener for example Sweden, Norway and some other European countries try hard to be less a drag on the planet and come up with new solution for new energy and cleaner production methodes. So you can't say that the West is wastfull when it comes to the recourcer, they also try to be more in balance with nature, otherwise you wouldn't have so much laws and rules that is made in Europe to perserve the nature.

And Yes you are right West is to some degree materialistic but it not worser than the rest. Sad but its true.

[Khostai]

That is over-simplification. One should look at per-capita consumption not what the whole nation consumes---Obviously, China has a population of 1300 millions.

Nations and countries will consume what they would want to(inevitability). The real point is equality and parity.

My point was that if peopel get richer they will consume more, Chinas economy is growing so they consume every year more than the year before. And yes I know, that even now one average chinees consumes lesser than an average American, but is it becuase the chinees culture is difrent or because he has lesser money to spend?

[Toramana]

I take exception to the author's declaration of "self governance." His viewpoint reeks of orientalism and has been thoroughly debunked by Edward Said amongst others.

.

That was copied from Edwards Saeed book Orientalism. It can be read here.

http://www.odsg.org/Said_Edward(1977)_Orientalism.pdf

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Hmm if you put it that way, than Arabs, who are also easterners are the bigest wastefull peopel on the planet, they build the tallest skyscraper for what??? Nothing actualy, and all those hotels and luxury cars and not to forget the food that they waste....Trilion petro dollars are just wasted on uselles things, when Somalia, where peopel die from hunger, is just around the corner.

At least Europe is trying to get more greener for example Sweden, Norway and some other European countries try hard to be less a drag on the planet and come up with new solution for new energy and cleaner production methodes. So you can't say that the West is wastfull when it comes to the recourcer, they also try to be more in balance with nature, otherwise you wouldn't have so much laws and rules that is made in Europe to perserve the nature.

And Yes you are right West is to some degree materialistic but it not worser than the rest. Sad but its true.

Well that's a good point, but even those Arabs aren't as Wasteful as the West; America used to be predominantly forests; It is now mainly plains and used to make grazing land for hormone treated cattle to grow for fastfood restaurants. The vegetation used to feed those cattle can feed all of the poor countries in the world for the next 100 years. Also remember what I said about IMITATING the West? That explains the phenomenon of Arabs in the Gulf; So even the "Easterners" who are Materialistic are just COPYING Westerners.

Also Sweden and Norway, they're good countries but No one thinks of "Sweden and Norway" because they have such tiny populations and their economies are not that large.

So yes we can say the West is wasteful and the MOST wasteful ......The West's policies aren't to be more balanced with Nature; it's because they've squandered so much of nature already and want to keep whatever is left for themselves. The West created the CURRENT environmental crisis in the first place, actually. That's why maybe they're creating these policies because they're the actual problem ?

That's what I'm saying the West has SQUANDERED MORE of the world's resources THAN the rest of the world combined including the Gulf Arabs.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

That was copied from Edwards Saeed book Orientalism. It can be read here.

http://www.odsg.org/Said_Edward(1977)_Orientalism.pdf

Yeah I remember that, but if I remember correctly, Said takes on Balfour and basically indicates that Balfour takes for granted that Egypt is inferior and Britain is superior and builds his argument around this. That is, Balfour's ideologies are under scrutiny by Saed but not accepted by him.

I am talking about this portion of the post which is Balfour.:
"First of all, look at the facts of the case. Western nations as soon as they emerge into history show the beginnings of those capacities for self-government . . . having merits of their own. . . . You may look through the whole history of the Orientals in what is called, broadly speaking, the East, and you never find traces of self-government. All their great centuries—and they have been very great—have been passed under despotisms, under absolute govern-ment. All their great contributions to civilisation—and they have been great—have been made under that form of government. Conqueror has succeeded conqueror; one domination
has followed another; but never in all the revolutions of fate and fortune have you seen one of those nations of its own motion establish what we, from a Western point of view, call self-government. That is the fact. It is not a question of superiority and inferiority. I suppose a true Eastern sage would say that the working government which we have taken upon ourselves in Egypt and elsewhere is not a work worthy of a philosopher—that it is the dirty work, the inferior work, of carrying on the necessary labour."