This is not only for those in our community who consider themselves Republican but for those who are Democrat, Libertarian and everything in between; What do you dislike about Obama.
Here's what I see:
- Came into a shit-storm of a situation, economy wrecked and in two wars.
- He made decisions that can be criticized and should be however, the economy is on the mend.
- He has ended one war and is ending another one.
- He has restored the reputation of this country in the eyes of much of the rest of the world.
- He killed Osama.
- He created health care reform that will benefit millions (not perfect by any means, but a step in the right direction for sure)
- He ended DADT
He has disappointed us in many ways as well but all in all I think he has done well considering not only the circumstances he came into, but also the hostile and overtly racist government he has to deal with.
What are your thoughts on this? What do you dislike about Obama?
The most dominate one and the one that causes us so much trouble is the seperation from Nature...because it affects the particular world view, cosmology, ontology, epistemology of the European culture...
Power for Control..Individualism, Rhetorical ethics..to name a few..
ShBAKKA - RE: "The most dominate one and the one that causes us so much trouble is the seperation from Nature...because it affects the particular world view, cosmology, ontology, epistemology of the European culture."
Please define all of these therms specifically, so that we bring YOUR assumptions to the table, rather than our own, thus remobing the "moving the goalpost" factor:
"the one that causes us so much trouble" - who is "us"?
"seperation from Nature"
"the particular world view, cosmology, ontology, epistemology of the European culture"
And the original requested definition, upon which we are still waiting, "the European culture."
First of all there has ALWAYS been a European cultural thought. Although it was always present in the cultural essence of the people, it didn't express itself formerly until the Greek civilization came into existence. Socrates, Plato, Aristole and later "philosophers" gave this cultural thought voice.
As for Islam..the Eastern Roman Empire was bearing down on the Arabs so Mohammed had his visions of how he could unite the tribes thru religious doctrine. The Western Roman Empire wouldn't really gel until King Constantine I...
Define it already.
First, give us YOUR definition of "European cultural thought."
RE the rest, clearly you agree with me that - what was your phrase? -- "brown-skinned people" set upon a campaign of (known) world conquest long before any countries other than Greece and Rome - more Mediterranean than European cultures - ever considered spreading "European cultural thought."
First it's not MY definition....European culture is a set of ideas, thoughts, and behavior that originated specifically among the people's of the region we call
Europe...if you don't understand that, I can't help you...
And these specific cultural traits are based on the idea that Nature is destructive (enemy) and should be controlled if not eliminated. These ideas spawn cultural concepts that the European mind internalized culturally.
Ideas of individualism, power for control, rhetorical ethic, expansion of the cultural self...etc...
you mean you didn't read this? The question that the author asked, Why Europe is because their cultural essence created this behavior. Later expressed by it's first true civilization, the Greeks.
Now if you can't put this together, like I said, I can't help you. BTW when you read this pay attention to the authors point about how the rest of the world has adopted this cultural idea...so you won't come at me with the standard this is not unique among cultures...
It IS your definition if, of surely more than one, it is the one to which you subscribe.
RE: "you mean you didn't read this?" - no, I have a life. But I have since downloaded it and done so.
Darwin proved that when animals find themselves separated from others of their species by a barrier, the two groups evolve differently. In my mind, though certainly possibly nowhere else, the Alps have provided that barrier, dividing - at least until Roman expansionism - Europe proper from Mediterranean Europe, to the extent that I rarely even think of Italy and Greece as being European, but I suppose they are. But bear in mind, that long before Alexander began his campaign of conquest, first Sargon, and later Hammurabi had conquered the entire Middle East, all the way to Egypt. Clearly the European Greeks and later, Romans, had ample examples after which to model themselves.
Once the European Greeks and later, the Romans, had had their day in the sun, the ball was once again in the court (if I dare make a basketball reference without you losing it again) of the Middle-Easterners, with the rise of Islam. In fact, your own author, Pattberg, specifically states, "Europe was a cultural backwater until the end of the Middle Ages consisting of isolated and warring city-states and territories," and further makes specific note of, "the Islamic civilisation that influenced Europe so profoundly in the period be-tween (sic) 1100 and 1400." The actual "European Cultural Values" you mention, didn't even develop until - again according to Pattberg - the era between 1450 and 1750, again, greatly influenced by the Islamic conquests of the previous era between that time and the decline of the influence of the Roman Empire.
RE: "Now if you can't put this together, like I said, I can't help you."
Oh, I can put it together, but not likely in the same way you do (must be my European Cultural Values) - Middle-Eastern conquerors influenced the Mediterranean-European Greeks, who influenced the Mediterranean Romans, who influenced the Middle-Eastern Islamists, who influenced the Northern Europeans, who single-handedly, with no help from the Middle-Eastern conquerors, the Mediterranean conquerors, or the Islamic conquerors, spread their influence around the globe. Is that about it?
Man, I really don't get your two-sided coin - you go up one side of "White" European Cultural Values, and that's fine with me, because as far as I'm concerned, they're fair game if you can support your assertions, but I mention "basketball," in a totally non-racial humorous comment, and you go ballistic because I was supposed to be clairvoyant and KNOW that a man, behind a completely anonymous avatar, was Black, and since basketball is relatively dominated by Black players, I must have meant something racial!
I'd be very curious to see that coin. Sure glad I didn't mention I had fried chicken for dinner, which I did, but knowing you --
lol it's no trap..The early people who lived in the general area of what we call Europe developed a particular world view...The people who lived in the area we call Africa developed a particular world view..it's no trap
Please describe your concept of those two world views, so that no one is discussing apples and oranges.
Remember the European cultural mind developed in a very harsh environment and that made them hostile towards Nature...it was their enemy and needed to control it..
However the African cultural mind had no problem with Nature because it provided them with enough food, and shelter..They needed their women and children to work the fields and help in the community whereas in European culture women and children were a burden on the resources of the powerful male. And if you remove the rhetorical ethic, it still is evident today..
No more harsh than North America. Given the specious causality you have outlined, Native American Indians must be hostile to nature.
Actually, the Arctic and the deserts are the most hostile environments, and yet you seem to see the temperate zone, with its temperate weather and abundant food supplies to be a hostile environment. In the temperate zone, all a people had to do was learn to get through winter by preserving and storing foods, hunting, making clothing and shelter, etc.
Your hostile environment theory is a joke.
Why don't you just come out and say what you feel: Europeans are bad people, because there appears to be little in the way of an alternative.
unseen, i think you've reached your limit...wth are you talking about? The period I'm talking about was during the formation of the culture..
There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.[3
During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 18,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat make it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).
I want you to understand this and understand it fully...I''ll put it in caps..
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOOD OR BAD, THOSE TERMS ARE RELATIVE. IT HAS TO DO WITH UNDERSTANDING SO WE CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AS A SPECIES AND STOP BEING SO FUCKING ARROGANT!