I almost never disagree with anything you right, but I think you are being
excessively cynical here.  The West has caused so much havoc over other
cultures because of the conditions they found themselves in, not because of
some enduring badness in them.  The Guns, Germs & Steel book is a very
interesting look at the conditions that differentiated the Western countries
from the rest of the world - as far as developing modern technology, the
West really got very lucky, even down to tiny details like the size of grass
seeds of the wild grasses in different areas and the orientation
(horizontal) of the landmass which allowed agricultural innovations to be
shared, where as in the Americas crops that grow in Mexico can't grow so
well in Brazil or New York.

If the native cultures had had access to the more powerful technology that
the West randomly had access to, the odds are that mistakes would have been
make.  The native american cultures did hunt to extinction almost all of the
large mammals that were here when they got here.  People are people; look to
the conditions to explain the differences.


On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Maria Lopez <>wrote:

> *Audrey Wrote:*
> *"I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better
> technology (and therefore an advantage in conquering less developed
> nations". *
> *-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *The expression of  "less develop nations" is no more than a very ignorant
> idea invading countries have over other countries to excuse themselves for
> the destruction and imposition of their own culture over other cultures.
> But most of it to exploit them, stealing and slavery them in many ways.  My
> view about the human race is that the bad people are always the winers and
> the ones who promote real civilization based are always the losers.
> Undevelop or Develop countries is just a wrong perception we all have about
> different cultures based in our own wrong perceptions.*
> **
> *Mayka*
> --- On *Sat, 18/9/10, audreydc1983 <>* wrote:
> From: audreydc1983 <>
> Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
> To:
> Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 23:02
> Yep, I agree with you - the situation in Australia is a whole different
> (although somewhat similar) can of worms.
> But - honestly - couldn't John Howard have just issued a statement to the
> Aboriginal people acknowledging the "mistakes" of the past? If I were
> Australian, I would BALK at him "apologizing" for me, or white people in
> general for what happened then.
> The sad truth is that the Aboriginals (like the Native Americans, and
> countless other peoples) were overcome by force: better technology and
> firepower. That can't be changed - especially by a "sorry" from one white
> politician.
> I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology
> (and therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations)in the
> first place - and with luck, I stumbled upon this book, called 'Guns, Germs,
> and Steel' in my local library:
> It's a fascinating read. We already know the "how" of it happening, but
> here's an interesting theory as to the "why" of it all.
> It's good chatting with you all!
> ~Aud
> --- In 
> mike brown <uerusub...@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Audry and Artie,
> >
> > It's quite a different situation in Australia regarding Aboriginal
> people. When
> > the conservative leader John Howard was in power he refused to sayÂ
> 'sorry' to
> > the indigenous people despite being called upon to do so for a number of
> years.
> > His argument was similar to both yours: that he wasn't personally
> responsible
> > for the crimes committed by people of a different generation. The
> Aborigines
> > point, however, was that policies enacted by a different government
> still
> > affects Aborigines today (for example, taking 'half-blood' Aboriginal
> kids from
> > their mothers and putting them into foster care or Christian missions -
> just
> > because they had white blood in them). Furthermore, people living in
> Australia
> > today live on the land that was traditionally Aboriginal land and was
> taken
> > without payment. Does kinda make a point that white people living on land
> taken
> > from the native people (nearly always by force) do share responsibility
> with
> > those people from a different generation. To say, "Sorry" is to recognise
> that
> > there is no 'break' from the past (how convenient for whte landowners,
> eh?) and
> > that we continue to enjoy what was once somebody elses without due
> recognition.
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ps Audrey, I used to be in the British infantry and have great respect
> for the
> > US Marines (not as good as the Brit Army, but still damn good!) Â :

Reply via email to