Hello Chris:
 
Have I been excessively cynical???.  In which way?.  I don't understand.  I'm 
surprise of your feedback. ,  Howevr, I stick to what I wrote because this is 
the way I see it..  Sorry if that sound as an offense to you.
 
Mayka.

--- On Sun, 19/9/10, Chris Austin-Lane <ch...@austin-lane.net> wrote:


From: Chris Austin-Lane <ch...@austin-lane.net>
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 19 September, 2010, 18:16


  



Mayka;


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.  



--Chris







On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Maria Lopez <flordel...@btinternet.com> 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 <audreydc1...@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: audreydc1983 <audreydc1...@yahoo.com>

Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
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:
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552
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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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 say  '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!)  : 










Reply via email to