The difference between a strong, confident culture and us

[jawapunk]

Oh, okay, sorry. Well we all know what happens, it's happened before. The strong and adamant culture will absorb the weaker one. In Canada we are becoming a very weak culture. It seems there are less and less people who would be willing to fight for their country with each passing year.

I don't see our country becoming weak. Unless, if you define weakness in terms of a multi-cultured, less homogenous one.

I would still fight for our country and I think you would find many would, that is, if Canada were ever attacked. I think many people wouldn't fight because it is becoming increasingly difficult to associate with the conflicts around the globe and make them "our" fight. I don't want to die in the mountains of Afgahanistan or on some random street in Baghdad. Does this make me less patriotic? No. I just think we as Canadians and North Americans, really need to disassociate ourselves with regional conflicts. Why should we be world police?

[ScottSA]

I'm just wondering something: the history of mankind is full of instances where populations have shifted and migrated. Are there any examples of "strong" cultures squashing "weak" cultures when the purveyors of said "strong" culture are the minority and are weaker in every other respect to the majority? Sounds a bit iffy to me.

Absolutely. See colonialism. I don't mean the usual revisionist claptrap from the left, but actual history. Take India, for example; not only did it's institutions change, but paradigmatic view of the world radically changed. What was a series of decaying empires based on what Marx called "Asiatic despotism" became, under the British, a modern democratic state. British culture was very strong then. It was self evident to the British that their culture was better than that of the nations they conquered, and it was self-evident to the conquered as well. And it wasn't just confined to colonialized cultures. Anyone remotely familiar with Chinese or Japanese history...real history...knows the debates that took place from 1850 - 1930s about how to best evolve into a western culture.

Now the west is awash in self doubt, mostly the offspring of a flawed revisionist parody of colonialism. By and large, at least in the case of the British colonies, colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to Asia. We have nothing to apologize for, even if there were any 18th century colonizers or their alleged "victims" alive today.

[August1991]

I'm just wondering something: the history of mankind is full of instances where populations have shifted and migrated. Are there any examples of "strong" cultures squashing "weak" cultures when the purveyors of said "strong" culture are the minority and are weaker in every other respect to the majority? Sounds a bit iffy to me.

I don't know if this example fits your query.

For about 500 years, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia and Greece were under Ottoman (Muslim) rule. The Ottoman Empire left unfortunate traces on Balkan history. Yet, all four of these groups remained Christian and kept their language despite various efforts to convert them to Islam.

[capricorn]

I would still fight for our country and I think you would find many would, that is, if Canada were ever attacked.

I am certain most Canadians would do just that and in any capacity they could help.

I think many people wouldn't fight because it is becoming increasingly difficult to associate with the conflicts around the globe and make them "our" fight.

I think many Canadians have come here to escape the violence and turmoil in their native countries. The majority of these Canadians simply want to go on with their lives, earn a good living and raise families. To do this, most tune out from the conflicts going on in many areas of the world. To a certain extent I myself have become desensitized to what is going on in the rest of the world although I keep up with events. The best I can describe it is a self-preservation mode. But I'm sure that would change in a heartbeat if Canada came under direct attack.

[Black Dog]

ScottSA

Absolutely. See colonialism.

I stopped reading there because you clearly didn't get it. The British were a strong culture. They were also a highly advanced one who were able to bend their subjects to their will by economic might and, if necessary, force of arms. They came from a position of strength in just about every sense of the word save for their numbers (which I'm sure their 16 pounders more than made up for): quite the opposite of today's immigrants to the west. But I'm sure you and those poor sods like you are quite comfortable comparing today's P.C. immigrant lobby groups to the might of the British Empire at its apex, which is why normal people think you're goofy bastards.

I don't know if this example fits your query.

For about 500 years, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia and Greece were under Ottoman (Muslim) rule. The Ottoman Empire left unfortunate traces on Balkan history. Yet, all four of these groups remained Christian and kept their language despite various efforts to convert them to Islam.

Not quite. What I'm looking for is examples of culturally weak but materially and numerically strong cultures being swamped by their opposite numbers.

None come to mind. On the other hand, history is awash in examples of paranoid fears about poor minorities swamping the dominant culture with their wicked ways that subsequently came to nowt.

[ScottSA]

ScottSA

I stopped reading there because you clearly didn't get it.

Oh, I don't think I'm the one who doesn't 'get it.'

[White Doors]

ScottSA

I stopped reading there because you clearly didn't get it. The British were a strong culture. They were also a highly advanced one who were able to bend their subjects to their will by economic might and, if necessary, force of arms. They came from a position of strength in just about every sense of the word save for their numbers (which I'm sure their 16 pounders more than made up for): quite the opposite of today's immigrants to the west. But I'm sure you and those poor sods like you are quite comfortable comparing today's P.C. immigrant lobby groups to the might of the British Empire at its apex, which is why normal people think you're goofy bastards.

Not quite. What I'm looking for is examples of culturally weak but materially and numerically strong cultures being swamped by their opposite numbers.

None come to mind. On the other hand, history is awash in examples of paranoid fears about poor minorities swamping the dominant culture with their wicked ways that subsequently came to nowt.

Rome with the Visigoths and Huns.

that was pretty easy.

[M.Dancer]

What I'm looking for is examples of culturally weak but materially and numerically strong cultures being swamped by their opposite numbers.

None come to mind. On the other hand, history is awash in examples of paranoid fears about poor minorities swamping the dominant culture with their wicked ways that subsequently came to nowt.

Hmmm.....well the Irish, Scottish and Welsh all lost their language and their cultures became marginalized to the extent that they are practised and learned on Saturdays in community hall basements....and only the welsh had significant foriegn immigration into their land.....

Is that what you are looking for?

[White Doors]

Hmmm.....well the Irish, Scottish and Welsh all lost their language and their cultures became marginalized to the extent that they are practised and learned on Saturdays in community hall basements....and only the welsh had significant foriegn immigration into their land.....

Is that what you are looking for?

Saxons taking over from the Celts as well?

[M.Dancer]

Saxons taking over from the Celts as well?

Perhaps but I don'y think that matches Black Dog's model. Britain had been depopulated beofe the saxon migration as the Romano-Brits left with the Legions as the empire contracted. There is some thought and by no means conclusive that by the time the first Saxon decided to stay instead of trade that the Celtic culture of what would be England had been virtually replaced by the cosmopolitain Latins....A form of Latin was spoken (similar to how St. Patrick would write around the same time)....it didn't take much for the Saxons to get a foothold....there weren't many to stop them.

Very little is really known as the writers of the early history, (Bede, mainly) were more concerned with making a national myth

[ScottSA]

Very little is really known as the writers of the early history, (Bede, mainly) were more concerned with making a national myth

That is about the only thing I wholeheartedly agree with you in the last post. The saxon shaore wasn't all about "trading," as much as you'd love to buy into that revisionist nonsense. What they have found in the wake of the legions is that the society struggled on for a while until it was overrun. Brittany wasn't populated by vacationers, y'know.

[M.Dancer]

Brittany wasn't populated by vacationers, y'know.

It was populated by Gauls....from the tribe of Brits....

Point?

[M.Dancer]

What they have found in the wake of the legions is that the society struggled on for a while until it was overrun.

What your language suggests isn't supported by physical evidence. That not to say that there were battles....battles were as common in those days as sheep shagging was a few hundred years later. What isn't supported is the replacement in populations....Angles and Saxons forcing out British Celts. More likely and supported by DNA evidence is the British ruling class either left or was absorbed while the peasantry remained virtually intact. The proof of this is in the bone. The genetic markers of your average wessexman is virtually the same as your average northern highlander or Welshman .

[White Doors]

What your language suggests isn't supported by physical evidence. That not to say that there were battles....battles were as common in those days as sheep shagging was a few hundred years later. What isn't supported is the replacement in populations....Angles and Saxons forcing out British Celts. More likely and supported by DNA evidence is the British ruling class either left or was absorbed while the peasantry remained virtually intact. The proof of this is in the bone. The genetic markers of your average wessexman is virtually the same as your average northern highlander or Welshman .

But different from the Irish, no?

[BC_chick]

As for August's comment about taking cultural lessons from the Sudanese - I certainly do wish our society had as much confidence and adamancy about our values as they do theirs - which is why we probably won't end up surviving.

You wish Canadians would take lessons about cultural "adamancy" {sic} from Sudanese?!?! You mean as in killing all dissenters in our midst?

Your comment is truly frightening! This is exactly the difference between conservative mind (be they Canadian or Muslim) and liberal one (again in the western sense or moderate Muslims) in seeing things black or white vs. gray.

While I (a liberal) may consider certain values "Canadian" I would not want to see anyone subjected to the fear of death for not adhering to the same values.

Giving up your life for a belief is noble, sure. But taking someone else's for your belief is nothing short of insecurity, backwardness and fascism!

Wow! Just Wow!!!

[Moxie]

Dispite the liberals best efforts Canadians are starting to speak out against Multiculture and so called Diversity. Buzz words that get the left elected, yet new comers are festing in slums in our major cities. They gig is up, Multiculture equals gettos and ethnic enclaves. Good for getting the vote, bad for society.

[ScottSA]

What your language suggests isn't supported by physical evidence. That not to say that there were battles....battles were as common in those days as sheep shagging was a few hundred years later. What isn't supported is the replacement in populations....Angles and Saxons forcing out British Celts. More likely and supported by DNA evidence is the British ruling class either left or was absorbed while the peasantry remained virtually intact. The proof of this is in the bone. The genetic markers of your average wessexman is virtually the same as your average northern highlander or Welshman .

Well, I'd certainly like to see evidence of that by way of a link to a bona fide historical anthropologist (not the new age variety). Leaving aside, of course, cultural, place name, and a host of other evidence separating the Welsh from the Saxons, from the Scots from the Danelaw and so on. Not to mention the actual historical evidence, including the ASC that you so blithely dismiss in passing by arbitrarly attributing intent to the minds of people you admittedly know nothing about, simply because there's nothing to know about them aside from their records. Oh, and then the plentious archeological evidence of warfare between the Saxons and the Romano-Brits. Then of course, there is yet more historical evidence, including Crayford, Cymen’s shore, The Weald, Mearcred’s Burn, and a host of other battles. In fact, there is almost nothing you can offer in concrete evidence suggesting this ludicrous notion that the Saxon warriors showed up in their hundreds to "trade" with a virtually unarmed society of far too civilized folk. Especially when most accounts talk of horrific slaughter, begining with, but not confined to Hengist and Horsa.

And Brittany, by all accounts, was repopulated by a mass influx of Britons about 50 - 100 years after the legions left and the saxon shore expanded. Coincidence? Well, maybe, but not very bloody likely.

Edited December 10, 2007 by ScottSA

[DogOnPorch]

It was populated by Gauls....from the tribe of Brits....

Point?

Brittany gets its name from Ancient Britons. During both the Roman invasion/occupation and during the early Dark-Ages (Angles Saxons and Jutes), some of the population escaped back across the Channel and settled in Armorica (Roman name for Brittany) to avoid conflict. During the Viking era, the Bretons allied themselves with the Norsemen in order to defeat the Frankish armies pressuring Brittany. This assured their independance. Even when Brittany was a part of the French kingdom, it was semi-autonomous and thought of by the French nobels as a rather wild area that was prone to revolt.

--------------------------------------------

Fortune, which has a great deal of power in other matters but especially in war, can bring about great changes in a situation through very slight forces.

---Julius Caesar

[M.Dancer]

but not confined to Hengist and Horsa.

And Brittany, by all accounts, was repopulated by a mass influx of Britons about 50 - 100 years after the legions left and the saxon shore expanded. Coincidence? Well, maybe, but not very bloody likely.

Hengist and Hortha are mythical kings ala Arthur....

And no it isn't a coincidence that the Brittany recieved those immigrants as I believe I have already stated that Britain was depopulated after the legions left but the immigration started earlier.

Early Middle Ages

After the Roman withdrawal, some British authors (Nennius, Gildas) mention Britons fleeing to Armorica to escape the invading Anglo-Saxons and Scoti. However, modern archaeology would place the beginnings of the British migration to Armorica in the Roman period, perhaps from the end of the 3rd century, most likely as part of Magnus Maximus' forces. These Britons gave the region its current name and contributed to the Breton language, Brezhoneg, a sister language to Welsh and Cornish. (Brittany used to be known in English as Little Britain to distinguish it from Great Britain - the street in London called Little Britain was the location of the embassy of the Duchy of Brittany).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brittany

[ScottSA]

Hengist and Hortha are mythical kings ala Arthur....

And no it isn't a coincidence that the Brittany recieved those immigrants as I believe I have already stated that Britain was depopulated after the legions left but the immigration started earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brittany

Ahem: Hengist and Horsa are not mythical, and you're using Wiki as source material. 'Nuff said.

[Canadian Blue]

With reference to the original post, I'd hope that no one on here would state that western culture is inferior to or equal to that of Islamic culture. While I once adopted many of the maxims of the left, I have come to the conclusion that the reason we have all of the freedoms and liberties we have is due to the sacrifice and free thinking of individuals in the past. While we are not racially or ethnically superior to anyone else, we have brought about one of the finest cultures on earth built upon liberal democracy, reason, and rationality. It's a shame that some on the left have decided to abandon these virtues due to political correctness, and one day they will have to realize their mistakes.

An incorrect notion amongst many is that Islamofascism has reared its face in the past 50 years, however it has been around forever, and I'm not seeing any signs of an "enlightenment" so to speak coming into fruition in the Islamic world. Their might be a chance of creating a secular democracy in Iraq, but that is dependent on how the US withdraws and what they leave behind. One interesting is that the first war waged by the United States was against the Barbary pirates who used the Koran as justification for taking slaves from the ships of Europeans, Americans, and Africans. While this does not reconcile the crime of the slave trade perpetrated by the west, it does tell us that those who were not white were just as guilty of the crime of slavery.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urba..._jefferson.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/barbary.htm

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_wi...g/terrorism.htm

In my own opinion if anyone wants to live in the western world they must not bring over values which are in direct contradiction to those which we value. We cannot espouse womens rights yet allow female circumcision and arranged marriage, we cannot denounce terror yet allow those who sympathize with suicide bombers, and we cannot allow those who use threats of violence against members of the press.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[bush_cheney2004]

One interesting is that the first war waged by the United States was against the Barbary pirates who used the Koran as justification for taking slaves from the ships of Europeans, Americans, and Africans. While this does not reconcile the crime of the slave trade perpetrated by the west, it does tell us that those who were not white were just as guilty of the crime of slavery.

Point made, and the Barbary Pirates was certainly early in US history, but not the first US "wars", those being the Revolutionary War of course and action against French forces in the Quasi War (1798 - 1800).

[Canadian Blue]

My mistake, I should have pointed out that it was the first real war outside of America's boundaries which had taken place. However it's odd that most people, including I'm sure most American's are not aware of it.

That being said that west can never accept any form of fascism, especially theological fascism which can come in any form, whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, or even Jewish. The one beautiful thing about the United States was the seperation of church and state, which I believe has helped create America into one the best, if not the best democracy in the world.

PS: I am fully aware of the problems with America's electoral system, however at the moment America is the one nation which I find truly stands up for those values. While America has committed wrongs, they still do not outweigh the good the American people have done for the world.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[bush_cheney2004]

PS: I am fully aware of the problems with America's electoral system, however at the moment America is the one nation which I find truly stands up for those values. While America has committed wrongs, they still do not outweigh the good the American people have done for the world.

OK....but I think you are being too kind.....it just so happens that American interests are/were consistent with millions of other like minded individuals around the world, yet this is not a universal feeling. Most vote with their feet, while others fight the power with their bomb vests.

[Canadian Blue]

Depends, America has generally been a force for good, but at the same time it has also been corrupt. Most notably under the Nixon/Kissinger administration which in my own opinion was about as criminal as an administration could get. Not just for Vietnam, but for the bombing of Cambodia and the support of fascist dictators in the Southern Cone. One also can't help but wonder about the slaughter of East Timor by the Indonesian's under their watch. But once again this is my own humble opinion on the matter.