the end of western civilization ?

i hear a lot about "western civilization" on this forum. recently this thread op by @Destroyer of illusions. in that thread it struck me that we don't really understand "western civilization.

Western Civilization Is Ceasing to Exist | Page 2 | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

the proud boys in their initiation ceremony, swear to uphold the values of western civilization. i wonder if we understand the values of western civilization .

my course in "western civilization" (history 101 at auburn) began with the sumerians and such in the fertile crescent. these middle easterners certainly contributed to what we think of as western civilization (agricultire, cities, laws), but no one considers astrology or child sacrifice to be core western values (or do we?) . so where do we think western civilization begins? classical athens?

 

It is a broad title with a near meaningless definition, if you are trying to tie it to something specific.

This is the primary reason that I rarely get into a discussion about labels.

 

By that standard, you'd have to skip pretty far ahead unless you believe that slavery is a core value of Western Civilization.

 

what would make you think that slavery is NOT a western value? even if you begin with the origin of "capitalism" in the enclosures of the 15th century or so, slavery is standard.

don't confuse me with a proponent of "western civilization. " i, like jesus, was influenced by the 3 wise men of the east.

 

How about the Holocaust? There are so many exceptions, that trying to apply an exact definition is meaningless.

 

the extermination of european jews is not the first time that elements within "the west" have attempted to "purify" or extend its perceived boundaries. the reconquista, the colonization of the new world, etc etc.

 

There is a monolithic western civilization. The greek civilization had few things to do with medieval europe, neither medieval europe had a lot of things to do with 19th century western world (western europe + north america).
It's sure that western civilization is becoming something else. As the greeko-roman world became something else after christianity was widespread.

It's interesting to notice also that the greeko-roman world wasn't the same than the christian western civilization. Germany wasn't part of greeko roman world, the british islands were fringe greeko roman world, and not very romanized. At the opposite north africa, the region of lebanon were among the core regions of this civilization (with Italy and Greece). At the opposite north africa wasn't part of the western world when the main definition of western world was around the catholic territories (then protestand and anglican).

For specific values of western civilization, the problem is that conservative views and progressive views are as much "western values", they're different part of western values, expressed on different manner.

 

There can be no doubt, that the history of slavery, is built into Western Civilization, in its current form, nowhere more obviously, than in the U.S.

 

The value of “western civilization” have evolved over time. If you look at British history, the power of the king or queen diminished over time from an absolute monarch, like William the Conqueror to Charles III, who is only a head of state. It is the elected government which rules. This took 900 years in round numbers and required a lot of bloodletting.

The evolution of the U.S. election process has changed in ways some people don’t realize. In the beginning, only White male property owners could vote. In most states, those who could vote could only vote for their member of the House. The Electoral College members were selected by the state legislatures. By 1824 the system had evolved to the point were 75% of the electors were selected by the people. That brought Andrew Jackson to the presidency instead of what had been a string of men who belonged to the American upper class. The people in South Carolina didn’t get any of those rights until after the Civil War. The members of the Senate were selected by the state legislatures until circa 1912. Women got the vote in 1920.

“Western civilized values”are something that is current. Other cultures have developed something similar, but they had less world-wide influence.

Today there are pockets of barbarism that fight “western civilization.” The radial Muslims are barbarians and savages. The radical North Korean Government is barely civilized. Only force keeps it in check. The left does not like those characterizations, but they are true.

 

I think that any of the sources for elements that still shape our current time, are validly a basis of Western Civilization. For example, W.C. wouldn't be what it is, without Christianity which, even though it was a new religious direction, sprouted from the roots of Judaism & Hebraic society, as well as became fused with the tendrils of a multiplicity of older, pagan belief systems, whose times of flowering were drawing to a close. Hence, all of these are at least contributors, to Western Civilization.

One thing that also, certainly, deserves consideration, are the ancient waves of migration, of the conquering INDO EUROPEANS, from the Steppes of Central and West Asia, bringing not just their genes, but language, religious beliefs, and perspective, to lands from Iran, to India, to Greece, to what would become Germany & Central Europe. These pollinators, it seems reasonable to believe, not only brought the concepts of their homeland, but must have picked up new ideas, along their ways, laying some of the foundation for a shared, Western Heritage.

That's a funny coincidence-- I'd started my post, from the same vantage point, as yours, just ahead of you (after my preceding post), but left it, to post elsewhere. When I returned to complete this post, I saw that you had posted about the same precept: Western Civ as a work in progress (built upon its past layers). Yours was a good, and interesting post. Though my views differ with yours on some elements-- most principally on the disparaging characterizations, you noted as being objectionable to the left-- I acknowledge that this is something that is debatable (if you cared to offer an argument).

The other place that I sense our perspectives would differ, would be in how we view President Andrew Jackson. I had never conceived, I don't think, of his election, in the terms you depicted, of populist leadership, versus aristocratic. My sympathies are towards more government of the people, yet I think Jackson was a poor President (with a very mixed legacy-- another thing that could, itself, provide for a wide-ranging debate). Also, if we look at the results, we see that among our country's earliest Presidents-- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe-- are still some of our best. So it gives me something to ponder, even if that may be different from what you'd intended to convey.

 

I would not say that Jackson was a very poor president. He was decidedly overrated when Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. almost made him into a great one with his Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Age of Jackson, which was published in the mid forties. Jackson treated the Indians very poorly although he was popular in his time for his "Indian removal" policies. His opposition to a central bank which could, though flawed, brought some order to the monetary system, was a disaster. It helped to bring on The Panic of 1837 which was the worst economic depression during the 19th century.

On the other hand, his populist political campaigns spread the influence of democracy. He reform of the gold coinage got that part of the monetary system on track. His battles with John C. Calhoun over the nullification issue (The states were allowed to nullify any federal law that they thought was not in their interest - at that time the protective tariff.) was really one of the first political battles of the Civil War. And, if you are a Democrat, you can thank him for the creation of the modern Democrat Party. The Democrats don't hold Jefferson - Jackson Day dinners for nothing.

Here the most desirable Jackson political token. It was issued during the 1932 campaign. The slogan, "The Union must and shall be preserved," was a huge slogan during the Civil War.



And here is one of the Jackson gold pieces which was authorized by the Coinage Act of 1834. Prior to then, all U.S. gold coins were too heavy. Large numbers of them were exported to Europe and melted. Jackson's political opponents called these pieces "mint drops."

 

Slavery was built into every civilization and still practiced today.
But wasn't it Western civilization that fought to stop slavery, which is not part of its current form?

 

Yes, the British ended slavery in their colonies and holdings in the late 1830s. Then they sent out their navy to fight the trade on the high seas. One of their targets were the American slave traders who will still bring them in from Africa to America illegally. The constitution stated that no more slaves could be imported as of 1808.

Unfortunately some politicians could not leave the issue alone. Lewis Cass, the 1848 Democratic nominee for president, complained about the British interference with slavery. That's what the slogan, "the constitution and the freedom of the seas" was about. Actually the constitution had nothing to do with it.

 

The one fact, does not obliterate the truth, or the legacy, of the other one.

 

Slavery actually ties in with the complicated history of the Jackson Presidency. My memory is foggy on the details-- though it sounds like you probably know them well-- but Jackson was instrumental (in a scheme which made a fortune, for he & his partners) in turning vast swaths of the South into plantations for cotton (& sugar cane?), which required the intensive physical labor of slaves. This probably involved his disregarding U.S. treaties w/ Indian tribes-- and the Trail of Tears incident arose because Jackson had ignored an order of Supreme Court!-- and Constitutionally corrupt business dealings, to enrich himself, on top of laying the foundation in our country, for large scale, institutional slavery.

Yet, if one can be honest with oneself, when appraising ugliness, it is hard to not concede that all of this did catapult U.S. industrial growth. I just prefer my growth, and my leaders' flirtings with illegality, more in the mode of Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase.

 

I think that's a stretch. Cotton was a very lucrative crop for the South, but it didn't work until Ely Watney invented the cotton gin. Once that was done, it was full speed ahead with large plantations, many slaves, cotton growing and export. Slave owners in the upper south, e.g. Virginia, sold many slaves “down the river” because slavery was no longer economically profitable in those areas. The sale of those slaves because a major income source for the owers.

Sugar cane didn't work that well in the American south. It was more of Caribbean island thing. Here in Floridan, along I-75, there is a museum called the Gamble Plantation. It was a sugar cane operation, but it only lasted for a few years in the 1850s. Then the sugar market changed, and it failed. The Plantation house stands, but the sugar boiling area is a ruin.

In that case, the Indian removal occurred because gold was discovered in North Georgia. The Cherokee Indians were living peaceably among the Whites and had become prosperous farmers. They were becoming “Americanized.” Unfortunately when the gold was discovered, the Indians had to go which resulted in “the trail of tears.” I have heard that some Indians don't like to handle $20 bills because Jackson is on them.

The land that was confiscated from the Indians was divided up into lots. It was sold via a lottery system, to prospectors (for land that likely had gold), farmers (large lots that probably didn’t have gold) and speculators who sold their lottery rights to others.

The north Georgia gold fields were real, but they never yielded as much gold as expected. A United States branch mint was opened in Dahlonega. There was another one in Charlotte North Carolina. Here is one of the first Dahlonega gold coins. It has a “D” mint mark above the date.

 

Yes, thanks, but I am familiar with that incident, which is why I only fleetingly mentioned it, as an aside. The point was that Jackson had not only disregarded treaties, but in his most abject affront to our government's system, and rule of law, he had defied the Supreme Court. This, of course, is a very dangerous precedent-- even if it did not lead to autocracy. Luckily, back then, there was no gaslighting internet.

Also, what I had thought (hence my adding it parenthetically, with a question mark), but thanks for confirming. I had thought of it, because I know that where it was grown, on what is now Haiti (& the Dominican Republic), the toll it took on slaves, was horrendous; life expectancy was very short, for the Africans who were thought of as disposable commodities, by the French.

Another both fascinating, and tragically sad situation, that evolved there, in what I think may have been the world's first black- majority democratic country, after the slaves had risen up, to oust the French. The depressing reality, though, is how they were shunned, afterward, by the rest of the world (at least the economic powers, of the West).

All right, so my overall conclusion (when it had been formed, many years ago) had come from my thinking of the chain of events, so to speak, with the specifics of Jackson's role, being a precursor, allowing for what could proceed, with the invention of the cotton gin.

 

First you said

So even though Western civilization defeated slavery and made it illegal to enslave anyone, you think Western civilization has slavery built into its current form?
Thats amazing

 

No, what might be a little amazing, if I hadn't been seeing all your recent difficulties, would be your inability to interpret, what I've written. Being "built in," only means that it was a formative influence, and has left its legacy. IOW, for the sake of argument, we can say that we've "defeated slavery;" but because of the slave history of blacks, especially here in the U.S., where it was so widely employed, and until such a late date, there is a heightened perception of the race line, from both sides, leading to a greater degree of racism-- particularly by whites who still see blacks as uncivilized, and inferior, in mental and cultural ways. IOW, there remains a vestige of the way they were thought of, for hundreds of years.

 

Yeah, we could have done without the Democrats institution of the KKK who still see blacks as uncivilized, and inferior, Or Democrats fawning over a former Grand Dragon (Robert Byrd)

 

It is the one fact that makes Western civilization the first great civilization to abolish slavery. No other great civilization even tried to do that. TBH.... I don't give Western civilization too much credit for that. Industrialization made a slaves a poor economic choice. This was proven by how much more powerful the industrial North was compared to the slave South.

Slavery is no more a stain on Western civilization than it is on Incas, Aztecs, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, Romans, Arabs, etc.... Every great civilization did it. We can afford moral approbation because we have a ridiculous over abundance of goods and foods. The time will come (10 years from now or 10,000 years from now) when the resources will run out, when that time comes all moral codes will be thrown out of the window. In the meantime, I sincerely wish those that hate Western civilization did not live here. Out of all the places on the globe, they decide to move to the place whose history they hate the most. They spend their entire lives attempting to make life miserable for those who live here and whose ancestors made this country the most attractive on earth.

 

Basic faults with your argument:
1) Human civilization, over the centuries, and millennia, has advanced & become more "civilized." Therefore, things done in 1850 A.D. (C.E.), cannot be looked at, on an even footing, with things that occurred in 1350 C.E., or 350 C.E., or 850 B.C.E. It is as if you are comparing the behavior of an adult, to that of children.

2) Many of those civilizations, no longer exist, in their ancient forms: Incas, Aztecs, Pharaonic Egyptians, ancient Greeks, Romans.

3) To acknowledge your country's past sins, does not mean that one "hates" their country. Believe it or not, there are some of us who see living in truth, as advantageous to propounding lies. We can even admit of ourselves, when we have been wrong, without it implying that we hate ourselves-- maybe give it a try, sometime.

 

And so you deflect from the subject of slavery, with a partisan attack, as if slavery could be attributed to just one political party, though it pre-existing those parties, by centuries.

Truly pathetic.

 

sugar was, and is , a significant crop in southern louisiana. the chalmette plantation where jackson led the most multicultural and multilingual army ever assembled on this continent to victory was a sugar plantation.

 

Not even close. I attribute the KKK to one party and the one party who fought to keep slavery alive.