aid to africa

You're losing me here UT...he wasn't referencing religion in the context in which you're referring to religion.

We should have figured, as a socialist, you don't believe in free will. :D
 
BrowneFan said:
Just as you have the right to not believe in God, so do people have the right not to support their tax dollars going to Africa. I have no problem helping those in need, but i think there are people here that are in desperate need of help.
Just my 2 cents.

Everyone has free will and everyone must take responsibility for themselves, including the Africans
Click to expand...
Yes I have been their many times as a missionary on mission trips.

Free will every human being has, we decide how we live, what we like, and what we are going to do, thats all I will say about that.

Oh Undertaker, you expect us to believe that there are no homeless in the united states, no battered women or children, people living in poverty. tisk tisk tisk
 
BrowneFan said:
Oh Undertaker, you expect us to believe that there are no homeless in the united states, no battered women or children, people living in poverty. tisk tisk tisk
Click to expand...
Free will...I don't feel sorry for them either.

I'm much more sympathetic to those in Africa than those in America who have all of the opportunity in the world yet have nothing.

I'm sympathetic to African's problems, but they need to fix them....and they need to do it from the bottom up starting with "the people" just like every other successful society.
 
its nothing compared to African problems. I simply dont agree with you I dont believe in free will. I never will. I believe in soft determinism.
 
A sheperd must tend his flock, he cannot watch all of his neighbors for their are too many wolves.


Which means we must tend our own country and take care of our own problems, and the Africans must do the same.
 
BrowneFan said:
A sheperd must tend his flock, he cannot watch all of his neighbors for their are too many wolves.


Which means we must tend our own country and take care of our own problems, and the Africans must do the same.
Click to expand...
can we move on, this dicussion just started getting intelligent. I understand where your coming from and I Disagree
 
fine disagree. But you have to understand you can't order everybody into charity. For it to work a person want to do charity work. If you want to help Africa form a group, take donations, go over there and offer personal assistance. But you can't make the government take this on because our government represents a large group and part of it could care less about Africa.


It would be like me walking down the street and someone sticking a gun to my head and forcing me to give all my money to a homeless man.

Charity should be an act not a government order.
 
VG, I hate to contridict on the main reason that AIDS is rampant in Africa but it somes to be that is WAY to many of the cases are vertical transmission cases, passed from mother to fetus by way placenta PLUS it has hit "straight" communities just as bad.. I really think you might want to go do a little bit more reading about this pandemic. Invalid Link Removed
 
BrowneFan said:
fine disagree. But you have to understand you can't order everybody into charity. For it to work a person want to do charity work. If you want to help Africa form a group, take donations, go over there and offer personal assistance. But you can't make the government take this on because our government represents a large group and part of it could care less about Africa.


It would be like me walking down the street and someone sticking a gun to my head and forcing me to give all my money to a homeless man.

Charity should be an act not a government order.
Click to expand...
We'll the govt does take our taxes dollars to help and it will continue (whether you like it or not), even someone as conservative as Bush is giving money.
 
UNDERTAKER said:
its not the same dude, thurst me, things just arent that simple. Some societies CANT excell. And some of the reasons they cant and havent has to do with Western interference in there way of life.
Click to expand...
This I would disagree with to some extent. I do agree that Africa, along with the middle east, has been screwed up and one of the primary reasons is western interventionism in those areas. However, getting screwed up and staying screwed up are two different things. By helping perpetuate regimes, giving 'aid' that makes existing problems worse and trying to intervene and convert to Christianity those who may not give a damn about Christ, we are also helping things stay screwed up.

However, backward economics and I would even say to a certain extent lack of self responsibility are also factors. Socialism will cause the collapse of a good economy. It will keep a decimated one in the shitter. If these ecnomies aren't freed from their central planners and corrupt governments and allowed to develop, the poverty in Africa will continue to get worse. Also, western culture isn't causing the spread of AIDS there, their own lack of responsibility is. No one is forcing people in Africa to screw ten times a day without a condom.

I'd love to find a way to help people in such dire straits, but most of the time the best thing you can do to help someone is to stay out of their business.
 
I actually heard a statistic the other day that Bush has given more forgein aid that any other President in recent history... I am not sure if the source was good, radio news story, but sounded interesting..
 
Matthew D said:
VG, I hate to contridict on the main reason that AIDS is rampant in Africa but it somes to be that is WAY to many of the cases are vertical transmission cases, passed from mother to fetus by way placenta PLUS it has hit "straight" communities just as bad.. I really think you might want to go do a little bit more reading about this pandemic. Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
I think he was referring to the straight population here in the US.

But yes, in "Africa" there are MANY ways in which AIDS is being transferred, not just anal sex.

Often its just normal sex, through birth, etc. And then there are hideous ways such as the ridiculous belief that "sex with a virgin cures AIDS" which has led to many rapes of many people, including the brutal rape of infants. AIDS here and AIDS there is totally different. We cannot do anything to control AIDS over there. Every time we offer more medicine, the rate at which AIDS spreads is just increased, unfortunately.
 
I would disagree with the idea that AIDS there is different but I think I get what you are saying.. that sexual practices here are different from there and UNDERSTANDING of the disease is different.. was that what you were saying?
 
UNDERTAKER said:
instead of ranting and raving about some of the less and I mean LESS educated people that have posted, I will post two suggested readings for all those who actually care to have an educated opinion on this subject instead of some of the responses I have been seeing.....

1. Guns,Germs and Steel ---a book about why some ethnic groups were successful and others were not


Survival of the fittest has to do with filling a niche in an enviroment not being the "strongest"
Click to expand...
i suppose that i am one of the LESSER EDUCATED people on here....:rofl:

i truly am a person who does look to expand my knowledge of the world. i took your book recommenation into heart and am working on finishing it.

i truly am very good about not being bias. so far, in reading YOUR recommendation of "guns, germs and steel" i have seen alot of things....i have learned nothing too new actually, yet (i will revise my current judgements later if the need arises).

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED THUS FAR:

1. some socities ARE more superior in intelligence than others

2. all societies started off EQUALLY

3. ALL of the societies that were conquered had an equal oppertunity to do reach the same intelligence/economy levels as their conquerors.

thus far, in my opinion the societies that are declining, will continue to decline no matter what. the civilzations mentioned so far in this book would have become extinct from that conquerer or another that came along.i am not making jabbing remarks towards africans. i am basing this off some cultures mentioned in the book such as the great Incas vs Spaniards and the Moriori vs. Maori.

i will continue reading, perhaps my opinion will change. i will provide actual quotes and page numbers to where i get my opinions from in later reading updates.

an interesting read for sure. i enjoy it very much.
 
knox said:
Survival of the fittest is used soley to describe those who cannot adapt to a change in their environmental surroundings. It has no place in who has the biggest guns.
Click to expand...
Doesn't someone developing bigger guns and thus opening the possibility of using them on another person/culture qualify as a change that would require adaptation? Darwinism, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it, has an applicability to things beyond merely the rocks and trees, the air and the terrain, etc. If a culture developed somewhere that valued to a great extent lolling about on the beach for 10 hours a day and were not willing to change that belief in the light of more productive cultures surrounding them, their demise would not be the result of exploitation but of their unwillingness to change. Nor should the surrounding cultures be forced to subsidize them. This is not a parallel to Africa, but a general statement. While it may not be totally justifiable to say this culture is superior to that one because that comes down to an aesthetic judgement in the end, the fact remains that some cultures will survive and some won't, and it's not because of exploitation. Some cultures will simply adapt, become more productive, more powerful, more dynamic, and other cultures won't be able to compete.
 
Mrs. Gimpy said:
i suppose that i am one of the LESSER EDUCATED people on here....:rofl:

i truly am a person who does look to expand my knowledge of the world. i took your book recommenation into heart and am working on finishing it.

i truly am very good about not being bias. so far, in reading YOUR recommendation of "guns, germs and steel" i have seen alot of things....i have learned nothing too new actually, yet (i will revise my current judgements later if the need arises).

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED THUS FAR:

1. some socities ARE more superior in intelligence than others

2. all societies started off EQUALLY

3. ALL of the societies that were conquered had an equal oppertunity to do reach the same intelligence/economy levels as their conquerors.

thus far, in my opinion the societies that are declining, will continue to decline no matter what. the civilzations mentioned so far in this book would have become extinct from that conquerer or another that came along.i am not making jabbing remarks towards africans. i am basing this off some cultures mentioned in the book such as the great Incas vs Spaniards and the Moriori vs. Maori.

i will continue reading, perhaps my opinion will change. i will provide actual quotes and page numbers to where i get my opinions from in later reading updates.

an interesting read for sure. i enjoy it very much.
Click to expand...

if this is what your got from the book. Any given how long it is, your either have a serious reading deficits or you didnt actually read it. The authors hold point is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOUR SAYING.
 
two people can read the same book and come to different conclusions. it's not uncommon. there's no need to insult other members saying they have "serious reading deficits" because they don't follow your view. calm down bro.
 
maybe your right, but this book is soooo straight up and the whole book over and over again is about the exact opposite of what she is saying.
 
UNDERTAKER said:
if this is what your got from the book. Any given how long it is, your either have a serious reading deficits or you didnt actually read it. The authors hold point is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOUR SAYING.
Click to expand...
Maybe he disagrees with the author. I don't know if he's read the book or not, but I have read many an article or book on topics, especially economics, where the author had a totally different view than my own of the same situation. For example one article I read on the fairly recent burst of the internet bubble blamed the crash on consumer spending habits; people weren't buying enough over the internet. Basically he blamed the crash on a significant percentage of people being luddites. I read his article, I think he was dead wrong, but I read it. I know what his point was, but it's possible to take the data he presented and come to a vastly different conclusion.
 
CDB said:
Maybe he disagrees with the author. I don't know if he's read the book or not, but I have read many an article or book on topics, especially economics, where the author had a totally different view than my own of the same situation. For example one article I read on the fairly recent burst of the internet bubble blamed the crash on consumer spending habits; people weren't buying enough over the internet. Basically he blamed the crash on a significant percentage of people being luddites. I read his article, I think he was dead wrong, but I read it. I know what his point was, but it's possible to take the data he presented and come to a vastly different conclusion.
Click to expand...

I agree and she can disagree, but what she said implies she was actually getting the info directly from the book.
 
UNDERTAKER said:
I agree and she can disagree, but what she said implies she was actually getting the info directly from the book.
Click to expand...
She may be. Just because the author is forcefully presenting their own point of view doesn't mean a person can't read the book, review the presented facts the author uses to justify their view, and come to a different conclusion. The author is saying A, B and C, and the reason for all this is D, E and F. A person can read that book and yes A, B and C are true, but the reasons for it are G, H and I. People can look at facts and interpret them differently, or view them in light of other facts as well. Maybe a reader has knowledge that an author doesn't, or doesn't present because it doesn't support their case. Like I said, I've read many a book and article and taken facts and ideas from them, but to justify a totally different conclusion than the author's.
 
UNDERTAKER said:
serious reading deficits
Click to expand...
First you attack the thread starter, now M.G.? Insulting people is in your nature. Everyone disagrees with you, yet you keep on with the notion that we majorly hindered the progress in Africa. You have stated you had plenty of examples, but have yet to provide a single one. I am no longer interested in your POV, you clearly reply to make subpar points and throw insults around. Let me guess, you are sorry for making that comment too? Your replies strictly provide comedic value at this point. The internet is full of tough guys who want to make no good point.
 
I am really starting to wonder about you UT, one minute you are fine and having a good conversation, next your throwing insults around... YOU are really failing to understand the nature of human existance... everyone sees everything differently...
 
whatever ghost, a great example of how we helped to **** up africa is how we used Angola during the cold war a political battle ground (and I mean physical battle ground where we armed factions there) against the Russians.

I understand she my disagree, but she didnt say she disagreed. She said she read most of the book and implied she was reiterating the authors points.
 
Matthew D said:
I am really starting to wonder about you UT, one minute you are fine and having a good conversation, next your throwing insults around... YOU are really failing to understand the nature of human existance... everyone sees everything differently...
Click to expand...
your right matt, I slipped again, I'll keep it constructive from here on out. We all fail to understand the nature of humanity in some respect or else there would be nothing to discuss.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
No, its obvious that's the piotn he's trying to make. But, his examples are HORRIBLE and he proves the opposite. I honestly cannot believe that he made this book.

I WOULD encourage everyone here to read it. He's a whacko. LOL

Mrs. Gimpy & KM00 :)
Click to expand...
so you read it?
 
UNDERTAKER said:
if this is what your got from the book. Any given how long it is, your either have a serious reading deficits or you didnt actually read it. The authors hold point is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOUR SAYING.
Click to expand...
First things FIRST....RESPECT.

i think that it is terrible to put down others as u so often do. Insulting people in my mind demonstrates a lack of respect and intelligence. There are so many ways to get a point across than to use derogatory or crude words. I really try to broaden my knowlegde of things and so i took the extra step and read YOUR recommendation.

I dont APPRECIATE the fact that i took the time to read your book, and i told you my honest opinion and you try to basically say that im "stupid" and say that im a "deficit reader", a better term would be a "deficient reader". I respected your opinion and followed YOUR recommendation and you turn around and blatantly insult me. I dont look favorably upon people who have not respect for other peoples opinions. you say u have respect and appreciate others opinions but so far you have demonstrated otherwise.

sorry about my ranting back to the point....

since you have seen fit to deny my reading and interpreting abilities, i have provided a quote like i promised. i only did one quote because i have to go out to lunch, i promise you i have pages more.

Pg. 19"... modern "stone age" peoples are on the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples."

MY OPINION: (background info)in this quote the author is refering to modern "stone age" peoples specifically as New Guineans. The new guineans are a very tribal group of people who live in huts, hunt and use spears.

now, the author says that these people are more intelligent than those of us who are new world and industrialized, e.g. those of us in America, Western Europe, Japan, etc, but are not as technically or as socially advanced as americans because they did not have an equal opertunity due to geographics, etc. the author is making assumptions based on absolutely no tangible evidence, only theories, and weak theories at that.

I believe the quote says it all and I really dont' have to add much. The whole quote was non-sensical at best.

You can blame geography and natural resources, but then you have Japan to deal with. Horrible geography, and horrible natural resources. Yet, with minimal western influence they were able to adapt and flourish in no time. Not only that, but they settled tens of thousands of years AFTER those people in New Guinea. Not to mention the MILLIONS of years behind those people in Africa, where there have been human-like creatures for, according to the author, 7 MILLION years (fig pg 37). Given those time frames, its ridiculous to assume those people with longer settlement periods--and despite equal time under what would be considered "modern influence", yet whom are still less advanced--to be more intelligent than those of us who have industrialized and are considered "modern". Then throw into the equation that we DID NOT originate in different areas of the world nor did we originate at different times, and, imho, its easy to see that his lame theories are nothing more than a desparate attempt at an argument. (For what reason, I have noooo idea.)

I'm not finished with the book yet, but I've yet to be impressed.

(We posted before under the wrong name...so that's why it was deleted.)
 
UNDERTAKER said:
whatever ghost, a great example of how we helped to **** up africa is how we used Angola during the cold war a political battle ground (and I mean physical battle ground where we armed factions there) against the Russians.

I understand she my disagree, but she didnt say she disagreed. She said she read most of the book and implied she was reiterating the authors points.
Click to expand...
During the cold war? LOL. That was so long ago, ( :rolleyes: ) we really put a huge damper on their society. That must have set them back at least 500 years. :rolleyes: :)
 
knox said:
You need to read a little about imperialism and colonialism before making a statement that they should "help themselves" before seeking aid. My mom was born in Ethiopia and half of my family are missionaries in the Kenya Ethiopian area. The people of Africa are very uneducated in modern customs. Africans come from mainly tribal roots and were hit hard by imperialism, colonialism, and slavery. This is just the stepping stone of the problems they have today, such as famine, AIDS, and disease. You won't find a Invalid Link Removed Afican that has better living conditions compared to a person here in the states (no matter how poor). My uncle and aunt are from America but live in a little hut in Ethiopia, their drinking water comes from streams while their electricity is from a home-made dam so-to-speak. You should take a little trip down there and see for yourself what it's like.

Count your blessings
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to put my metaphorical "hard hat" on after saying this, but Julius Caesar once said "To the victors go the spoils.�
 
I take that above post back, somewhat.


They shouldn't blame there problems on us. They were "used" b/c they couldn't defent themselves and that is there own doing. On the other hand, my grandfather use to say a one liner all the time that really moved me... "Only by the grace of god go I." Translation- I was put in america by the grace of god and the grace of god alone. Still, I dont think we should help africa when we have our own problems to deal with.

Look at it this way. On airplanes on the safety air things idk what every they are, it says "put your mask on before assisting others." We need to help OURSELVES before we aid others. The weak cant help the weak, and right now, America is weak.
 
Mrs. Gimpy said:
You can blame geography and natural resources, but then you have Japan to deal with. Horrible geography, and horrible natural resources. Yet, with minimal western influence they were able to adapt and flourish in no time.
Click to expand...
Japan was influenced greatly by the west with a couple of atom bombs. America went in and set up their own government, took major steps in their economic status with direct trade, and took away any possibility of japans motive in developing an offensive military.
 
davisville64 said:
I'm going to have to put my metaphorical "hard hat" on after saying this, but Julius Caesar once said "To the victors go the spoils.�
Click to expand...
Say what u like davis because i am the chopper challenge champion and nothing can ruin this day..lol:D
 
davisville64 said:
Oh DO NOT GO THERE! :frustrate

Who started that war? Japan. END OF STORY
Click to expand...
I am aware they started Americas involvement WWII. i'm just mentioning they were influenced by America which contributes to their present economic status.
 
knox said:
Japan was influenced greatly by the west with a couple of atom bombs. America went in and set up their own government, took major steps in their economic status with direct trade, and took away any possibility of japans motive in developing an offensive military.
Click to expand...
Japan had western interaction WAY before WWII.

Westerners showed up there, the Japanese were awestruck by western culture, the government got pissed and didn't want western influences ruining Japanese tradition, then responded by giving the westerners the boot.

Eventually, the US showed back up and demanded trade...gave them 1yr to decide to either trade or be destroyed. A year later when a fleet of US troops showed up, trade was the decision.

Quickly, Japan adopted western culture, including "imperialism" and bacame "Imperial Japan" shortly for power and natural resources--they got the short end of the stick when it comes to natty resources. WWII started as a response to Japanese Imperialism.

As Japan expanded and the League of Nations did NOTHING (much like its sibling the UN does today) Mussoulini saw than and invaded an African nation which he held a grudge against and absolutely destroyed them. Then hitler saw that and realized how impotent the LON was and joined the fun.

Point being, Japan began RAPID westernization long before we occupied them post WWII. It was pretty much the most amazing cultural advancement in history.

Look it up sometime.
 
Mrs. Gimpy said:
First things FIRST....RESPECT.

i think that it is terrible to put down others as u so often do. Insulting people in my mind demonstrates a lack of respect and intelligence. There are so many ways to get a point across than to use derogatory or crude words. I really try to broaden my knowlegde of things and so i took the extra step and read YOUR recommendation.

I dont APPRECIATE the fact that i took the time to read your book, and i told you my honest opinion and you try to basically say that im "stupid" and say that im a "deficit reader", a better term would be a "deficient reader". I respected your opinion and followed YOUR recommendation and you turn around and blatantly insult me. I dont look favorably upon people who have not respect for other peoples opinions. you say u have respect and appreciate others opinions but so far you have demonstrated otherwise.

sorry about my ranting back to the point....

since you have seen fit to deny my reading and interpreting abilities, i have provided a quote like i promised. i only did one quote because i have to go out to lunch, i promise you i have pages more.

Pg. 19"... modern "stone age" peoples are on the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples."

MY OPINION: (background info)in this quote the author is refering to modern "stone age" peoples specifically as New Guineans. The new guineans are a very tribal group of people who live in huts, hunt and use spears.

now, the author says that these people are more intelligent than those of us who are new world and industrialized, e.g. those of us in America, Western Europe, Japan, etc, but are not as technically or as socially advanced as americans because they did not have an equal opertunity due to geographics, etc. the author is making assumptions based on absolutely no tangible evidence, only theories, and weak theories at that.

I believe the quote says it all and I really dont' have to add much. The whole quote was non-sensical at best.

You can blame geography and natural resources, but then you have Japan to deal with. Horrible geography, and horrible natural resources. Yet, with minimal western influence they were able to adapt and flourish in no time. Not only that, but they settled tens of thousands of years AFTER those people in New Guinea. Not to mention the MILLIONS of years behind those people in Africa, where there have been human-like creatures for, according to the author, 7 MILLION years (fig pg 37). Given those time frames, its ridiculous to assume those people with longer settlement periods--and despite equal time under what would be considered "modern influence", yet whom are still less advanced--to be more intelligent than those of us who have industrialized and are considered "modern". Then throw into the equation that we DID NOT originate in different areas of the world nor did we originate at different times, and, imho, its easy to see that his lame theories are nothing more than a desparate attempt at an argument. (For what reason, I have noooo idea.)

I'm not finished with the book yet, but I've yet to be impressed.

(We posted before under the wrong name...so that's why it was deleted.)
Click to expand...

Now that I understand that you disagree with the book I can accept your opinion, I was under the impression what you stated was actually what the author was trying to say. Your Japan example is a good one and I partially conceed to it. I commend you for actually taking the time to read it.
 
Ghosting said:
During the cold war? LOL. That was so long ago, ( :rolleyes: ) we really put a huge damper on their society. That must have set them back at least 500 years. :rolleyes: :)
Click to expand...
its still a good example the reason I chose it was to show American interference, not just Western. We still fucked that country up and it is effecting it today.
 
CDB said:
Doesn't someone developing bigger guns and thus opening the possibility of using them on another person/culture qualify as a change that would require adaptation? Darwinism, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it, has an applicability to things beyond merely the rocks and trees, the air and the terrain, etc. If a culture developed somewhere that valued to a great extent lolling about on the beach for 10 hours a day and were not willing to change that belief in the light of more productive cultures surrounding them, their demise would not be the result of exploitation but of their unwillingness to change. Nor should the surrounding cultures be forced to subsidize them. This is not a parallel to Africa, but a general statement. While it may not be totally justifiable to say this culture is superior to that one because that comes down to an aesthetic judgement in the end, the fact remains that some cultures will survive and some won't, and it's not because of exploitation. Some cultures will simply adapt, become more productive, more powerful, more dynamic, and other cultures won't be able to compete.
Click to expand...
I see you point and agree. I am a very open minded person and apprectiate your post. But there are reasons why the more developed countries don't live by "survival of the fittest" idea. If everyone was out to be the supreme conquorer of the world then we would watch as the elderly and the blind attempt to cross a busy street alone and watch as the unfit were smashed into the grill of a mack truck. Notice how countries in africa, the middle east, and other small milita groups around the world have been battling for ages attempting to gain a more dominant level. These countries, to me anyway, seem to be focusing on this idea of survival by killing off those around them.

It seems that the majority of the people involved in this thread wish to see the folks in africa prosper and take responsibility for their own actions, which i agree. but i dont think people of less economic status and intellectual standards have had the same oppurtunities as everyone else in the world, not always anyway. Africa has had its share of problems and is continuously getting worse. When this continent dies off what do we do then? Do we sit back and think to ourselves that they had it coming? Is africa in trouble presently because of the famine, disease, AIDs etc.? or is it in trouble becuase they are not economically equal to the rest of the world? There are lots of tribes in south america that are not aggressive and not modern but continue to do well. The only problems they have are the decreasing rain forest which they live in, but it is being cut down. is this an example of survival of the fittest? i'm not a tree hugger or anything, just thinking out loud.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
Japan had western interaction WAY before WWII.

Westerners showed up there, the Japanese were awestruck by western culture, the government got pissed and didn't want western influences ruining Japanese tradition, then responded by giving the westerners the boot.

Eventually, the US showed back up and demanded trade...gave them 1yr to decide to either trade or be destroyed. A year later when a fleet of US troops showed up, trade was the decision.

Quickly, Japan adopted western culture, including "imperialism" and bacame "Imperial Japan" shortly for power and natural resources--they got the short end of the stick when it comes to natty resources. WWII started as a response to Japanese Imperialism.

As Japan expanded and the League of Nations did NOTHING (much like its sibling the UN does today) Mussoulini saw than and invaded an African nation which he held a grudge against and absolutely destroyed them. Then hitler saw that and realized how impotent the LON was and joined the fun.

Point being, Japan began RAPID westernization long before we occupied them post WWII. It was pretty much the most amazing cultural advancement in history.

Look it up sometime.
Click to expand...
good stuff. so can we agree that japan was greatly influenced by westerners? I wasn't trying to state that Americas involvement in japan during WWII was the only western influence japan had, but i can honestly say i wasn't aware of the info you made above. I'll look into it.
 
UNDERTAKER said:
its still a good example the reason I chose it was to show American interference, not just Western. We still fucked that country up and it is effecting it today.
Click to expand...
Some people will say anything before they say they are wrong. The cold war was a great example. :rolleyes: We set them back big time with that one. They were so modernized, until those damn americans messed things up. :rolleyes:
 
UNDERTAKER said:
Now that I understand that you disagree with the book I can accept your opinion, I was under the impression what you stated was actually what the author was trying to say. Your Japan example is a good one and I partially conceed to it. I commend you for actually taking the time to read it.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
knox said:
good stuff. so can we agree that japan was greatly influenced by westerners? I wasn't trying to state that Americas involvement in japan during WWII was the only western influence japan had, but i can honestly say i wasn't aware of the info you made above. I'll look into it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, its all there. Japanese history is awesome, honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top