God Fraud

[Michael]

The God Fraud

Best-selling atheist author Sam Harris pushes back against Karen Armstrong's sympathetic take on religion.


Article (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/18/the_god_fraud)

This argument from Sam Harris is a perfect example of the kind of obnoxiousness these militant and fanatical atheists are up to. Apparently ridicule and condescention are the weapons of choice.

As far as I'm concerned, these professional religious fanatic atheists are as obnoxious as the fundamentalist religious fanatics they supposedly are opposed to. They both seem one and the same to me - just fanatics that demand the world conform to their own subjective bias.

[Zarquon]

Article (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/18/the_god_fraud)

This argument from Sam Harris is a perfect example of the kind of obnoxiousness these militant and fanatical atheists are up to. Apparently ridicule and condescention are the weapons of choice.

How so? He's merely pointing out how her assertions about majority religion are patently ludicrous.

[partofme]

As an atheist my concern is how much people distrust and even are hostile towards us. I'm not really interested in tearing down religion so much as I just want tolerance towards nonbelievers. This sort of thing isn't helping.

[Margot]

Everything he said was right, at least as far as I could tell.

What, really, is the value of nice?

[Non Sequitur]

my problem with Harris and his kind is that their arguments against religion go something like this: fundamentalism is bad, fundamentalists are religious, thus religion is all wrong. I once heard Sam Harris say something like "the fundamentalists are the ones with the correct interpretation of the holy text." He continued to argue that moderate believers are actually just trying to deceive themselves. I was astounded that he was in the same lecture saying "I think belief and all it entails is not just illogical, but wrong" and also saying "this is how the holy text should be interpreted."

[andrewl]

my problem with Harris and his kind is that their arguments against religion go something like this: fundamentalism is bad, fundamentalists are religious, thus religion is all wrong. I once heard Sam Harris say something like "the fundamentalists are the ones with the correct interpretation of the holy text." He continued to argue that moderate believers are actually just trying to deceive themselves. I was astounded that he was in the same lecture saying "I think belief and all it entails is not just illogical, but wrong" and also saying "this is how the holy text should be interpreted."

Harris' argument about moderates goes like this.

A "moderate" attends religious ceremony out of respect for family members and/or to be part of a community. They might find some aspects of religion fulfilling or inspiring and they might find other aspects absurd or horrific. The common theme is that they just want to be part of the community, not offend anybody, etc. They are not true believers, and they literally just pick and choose aspects of religion that are palatable to them and reject other aspects that they might find meaningless or distasteful.

The problem is that they unwittingly give credibility to the religious fundamentalists by their moderate acceptance of religion. For example, a million Catholics who do not literally believe that birth control is a sin automatically give legitimacy to the handful that do simply by their association and respect for the catholic institution.

So when Harris says that fundamentalists have the only correct interpretation he is alluding to the idea that they have the only interpretation, hence the correct interpretation. In other words, moderates do not interpret the holy texts at all, they simply pick and choose aspects interpreted by others (fundamentalists) that are acceptable and reject interpretations that are not.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

Harris' argument about moderates goes like this.

A "moderate" attends religious ceremony out of respect for family members and/or to be part of a community. They might find some aspects of religion fulfilling or inspiring and they might find other aspects absurd or horrific. The common theme is that they just want to be part of the community, not offend anybody, etc. They are not true believers, and they literally just pick and choose aspects of religion that are palatable to them and reject other aspects that they might find meaningless or distasteful.

The problem is that they unwittingly give credibility to the religious fundamentalists by their moderate acceptance of religion. For example, a million Catholics who do not literally believe that birth control is a sin automatically give legitimacy to the handful that do simply by their association and respect for the catholic institution.

So when Harris says that fundamentalists have the only correct interpretation he is alluding to the idea that they have the only interpretation, hence the correct interpretation. In other words, moderates do not interpret the holy texts at all, they simply pick and choose aspects interpreted by others (fundamentalists) that are acceptable and reject interpretations that are not.

Andrew

Ok, I might buy that argument except even a literalist picks and chooses. The Bible talks about Slavery (paul writes a whole letter about how a slave should go back to his master), but I doubt a single six day creationist would say "slavery is Christian." Everyone Picks and chooses because the book was written over several thousand years by over 66 different authors (probably more). To assert that every word is going to be equally applicable in all times is insanity.

And that still leaves my real objection that the atheist is telling me (as a moderate in most senses of the word) how to interpret my Holy Book. You can't say "I don't believe a single word in this text is true" and also say "but your reading the text wrong." Also, He, as a non believer, can't argue who is a true believer and who isn't. It's like me trying to tell A Muslim how to interpret the Koran.

[andrewl]

Ok, I might buy that argument except even a literalist picks and chooses. The Bible talks about Slavery (paul writes a whole letter about how a slave should go back to his master), but I doubt a single six day creationist would say "slavery is Christian." Everyone Picks and chooses because the book was written over several thousand years by over 66 different authors (probably more). To assert that every word is going to be equally applicable in all times is insanity.

And that still leaves my real objection that the atheist is telling me (as a moderate in most senses of the word) how to interpret my Holy Book. You can't say "I don't believe a single word in this text is true" and also say "but your reading the text wrong." Also, He, as a non believer, can't argue who is a true believer and who isn't. It's like me trying to tell A Muslim how to interpret the Koran.

But i think what Sam Harris is saying is a more of an appeal to some level of sanity and common sense. When a Muslim suicide bomber is a 'true believer' in the idea that by killing himself and as many 'infidels' as possible he will be rewarded in the afterlife it is perfectly acceptable (if not essential) for all non-beleivers (and moderates) to tell the suicide bomber that his interpretation is wrong. A 'true believers' interpretation often has profound effects on other people of different or no faiths at all. Be it catholics preventing birth control and confounding a legitimate strategy to mitigate the spread of aids or a suicide bomber going out and murdering people.

Likewise for more innocent interpretations as well. As a non believer i am just as capable of interpreting the bible as any other true believer. There should be nothing at all wrong with my interpretation or my sharing of it with others. Certainly most religious people have no problem sharing their interpretation of the universe with atheists, and nor should they.

Andrew

[The Drunk Guy]

But i think what Sam Harris is saying is a more of an appeal to some level of sanity and common sense. When a Muslim suicide bomber is a 'true believer' in the idea that by killing himself and as many 'infidels' as possible he will be rewarded in the afterlife it is perfectly acceptable (if not essential) for all non-beleivers (and moderates) to tell the suicide bomber that his interpretation is wrong. A 'true believers' interpretation often has profound effects on other people of different or no faiths at all. Be it catholics preventing birth control and confounding a legitimate strategy to mitigate the spread of aids or a suicide bomber going out and murdering people.

Likewise for more innocent interpretations as well. As a non believer i am just as capable of interpreting the bible as any other true believer. There should be nothing at all wrong with my interpretation or my sharing of it with others. Certainly most religious people have no problem sharing their interpretation of the universe with atheists, and nor should they.

Andrew
I know my atheism is based on my interpretation of the Bible and I do live according to many of the lessons the Bible has to offer. A book is a book and anyone can read and get something totally different and special out of it.

Histories and cultures have lots to add to our current culture, but their continued existence is not necessary for them to be useful.

[Non Sequitur]

But i think what Sam Harris is saying is a more of an appeal to some level of sanity and common sense. When a Muslim suicide bomber is a 'true believer' in the idea that by killing himself and as many 'infidels' as possible he will be rewarded in the afterlife it is perfectly acceptable (if not essential) for all non-beleivers (and moderates) to tell the suicide bomber that his interpretation is wrong. A 'true believers' interpretation often has profound effects on other people of different or no faiths at all. Be it catholics preventing birth control and confounding a legitimate strategy to mitigate the spread of aids or a suicide bomber going out and murdering people.

Ok, but on what basis does the extreme get to dictate what is truth and what isn't? If I used his argument in politics I would be saying the Christian Right and Far Left are the true expressions of political ideology.

Likewise for more innocent interpretations as well. As a non believer i am just as capable of interpreting the bible as any other true believer. There should be nothing at all wrong with my interpretation or my sharing of it with others. Certainly most religious people have no problem sharing their interpretation of the universe with atheists, and nor should they.

Andrew

but see the standard response of anyone of faith is that the non believer is not equally capable of interpreting the holy text. Interpreting the holy text requires oneself to be totally immersed in the story (to use Biblical language "to be a member of the body of Christ"). If a person who has no experience in biology tries to read an Organic Chemistry book they will be confused because they do not know the vocabulary and starting assumptions. In the same way, the person who is outside the church does not have the appropriate background knowledge to have a valid opinion on the subject. The Bible is supposed to be interpreted in the community of faith, not outside of it. This is because the book makes no sense unless one is trying for a relationship with the divine. Without that beginning, the book is nonsensical rambling.

[andrewl]

Ok, but on what basis does the extreme get to dictate what is truth and what isn't? If I used his argument in politics I would be saying the Christian Right and Far Left are the true expressions of political ideology.

In a way they are. Anybody in the middle is entirely non-active in defining the political direction of the US. They vote, sure. But look what they get to vote for... gay marriage. Either extreme does indeed tend to define the political conversation.


but see the standard response of anyone of faith is that the non believer is not equally capable of interpreting the holy text. Interpreting the holy text requires oneself to be totally immersed in the story (to use Biblical language "to be a member of the body of Christ"). If a person who has no experience in biology tries to read an Organic Chemistry book they will be confused because they do not know the vocabulary and starting assumptions. In the same way, the person who is outside the church does not have the appropriate background knowledge to have a valid opinion on the subject. The Bible is supposed to be interpreted in the community of faith, not outside of it. This is because the book makes no sense unless one is trying for a relationship with the divine. Without that beginning, the book is nonsensical rambling.

Yes, i see what you mean, but i disagree. I can read genesis without any interest at all in finding a relationship with the divine and i see an interesting story that can be interpreted in many ways - none of the absolutely correct. Its certainly not nonsensical rambling to me, and im not looking for any relationship with god when i read genesis.

One need only know how to read to interpret the bible. If we move over to the sciences one needs only to understand math to interpret the textbook.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

In a way they are. Anybody in the middle is entirely non-active in defining the political direction of the US. They vote, sure. But look what they get to vote for... gay marriage. Either extreme does indeed tend to define the political conversation.

So anyone who doesn't move into dogmaticism is apathetic? Would you hold that true for yourself? I do not think you are all that extreme ;)




Yes, i see what you mean, but i disagree. I can read genesis without any interest at all in finding a relationship with the divine and i see an interesting story that can be interpreted in many ways - none of the absolutely correct. Its certainly not nonsensical rambling to me, and im not looking for any relationship with god when i read genesis.

One need only know how to read to interpret the bible. If we move over to the sciences one needs only to understand math to interpret the textbook.

Andrew

I guess what I'm saying is that simply isn't true. That kind of thinking (you only need to read to interpret the Bible) is the exact thinking that gets Conservative protestantism into trouble. Anyone can come up with homophobic interpretations of the Bible. Correct interpretations, however, require solid learning and studying for years.

[Michael]

In a way they are. Anybody in the middle is entirely non-active in defining the political direction of the US. They vote, sure. But look what they get to vote for... gay marriage. Either extreme does indeed tend to define the political conversation.
I categorically reject this interpretation. Extremism is just 'extreme' - it is not the 'pure' version of the idea.

I'm specifically in the mushy middle when it comes to politics (and proud of it) and I'm also quite active seeking to define the political direction of the US. I have also (previously) offered substantive theoretical justifications for holding such a moderate or anti-extreme positions. My position is not just a subjective whim.

I'll certainly agree that the extremes do tend to define the political conversation - but this is because certain political interests profit greatly from this tendency for extremism. Suffice it to say that any group that dislikes, distrusts, is afraid of, or generally opposes democratic rule is going to profit from pushing the extremes as a matter of policy. Some people just don't want good government. If you are corrupt, or believe that taxes are just legalized theft, then you have good reason to be afraid of democracy.

One need only know how to read to interpret the bible. If we move over to the sciences one needs only to understand math to interpret the textbook.
I disagree with these generalized statements.

Anecdotally, I'd say that some of the biggest morons I've ever met have been dudes with PhD's in math. We're talking about complete idiots with zero conception of anything outside of math.

And from my university days, I must say that one group of people that most often pronounced their political opinions, in the loudest voices, with the strongest measure of certainty, about topics they knew nothing about, were from the faculty of science or engineering (the math people!). Really quite surprising that was - eye-opening might be the better word. One might expect that from the lefty soc-sci or humanities set, but one would be quite mistaken.

And I have a particular book on my bookshelf that I've read at least eight times already and I still cannot honestly say I've figured out what the book is about. Archeology of Knowledge by Michel Foucault. Ergo, I must subjectively conclude that is mere skill of reading words may be insufficient to explicate the meaning of a text.

[andrewl]

So anyone who doesn't move into dogmaticism is apathetic? Would you hold that true for yourself? I do not think you are all that extreme ;)


Really? I want to see the end of civilization and i cheer on people who sabotage industrial equipment and infrastructure. Some think that is extreme. :shrug:


I guess what I'm saying is that simply isn't true. That kind of thinking (you only need to read to interpret the Bible) is the exact thinking that gets Conservative protestantism into trouble. Anyone can come up with homophobic interpretations of the Bible. Correct interpretations, however, require solid learning and studying for years.

I would not necessarily call them correct interpretations, but certainly they are better interpretations. I agree with you. Not all interpretations are equal.

Andrew

[partofme]

Really? I want to see the end of civilization and i cheer on people who sabotage industrial equipment and infrastructure. Some think that is extreme. :shrug:





Andrew

Wow!!!

[Michael]

Really? I want to see the end of civilization and i cheer on people who sabotage industrial equipment and infrastructure. Some think that is extreme. :shrug:
You are apparently a Luddite. It is an old ideology from the 18th century. I've been expecting them to have a revival in the 21st century.

[andrewl]

You are apparently a Luddite. It is an old ideology from the 18th century. I've been expecting them to have a revival in the 21st century.

Not at all. My issue is with culture, not technology.

Andrew

[Michael]

Not at all. My issue is with culture, not technology.

Andrew
Culture and technology are one and the same. :shrug:

(well, chicken and egg to be more specific, different, but intimately related to each other)

[andrewl]

Culture and technology are one and the same. :shrug:

(well, chicken and egg to be more specific, different, but intimately related to each other)

Fair enough.

Regardless, my position has nothing to do with Luddites and their fear of technology displacing manual labor and a way of life.

My position would best be described as defense of clean water, clean air, and viable ecosystems that support life. In so far as our culture destroys those things it is imperative that people resist and defend.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

Fair enough.

Regardless, my position has nothing to do with Luddites and their fear of technology displacing manual labor and a way of life.

My position would best be described as defense of clean water, clean air, and viable ecosystems that support life. In so far as our culture destroys those things it is imperative that people resist and defend.

Andrew
Indeed, it has nothing to do with 'the Ludds'. It was actually my position as well as a wee lad until I came to comprehend that humans were not only part of nature by virtue of their inherited physical biology but by the totality of their existence (i.e., human environment is a subset of natural environment and not a separate class).

It (Andrew's view) is an environmentalism where the gloomy view of human behavior is an ideological consequence rather than an actual conviction.

[andrewl]

Indeed, it has nothing to do with 'the Ludds'. It was actually my position as well as a wee lad until I came to comprehend that humans were not only part of nature by virtue of their inherited physical biology but by the totality of their existence (i.e., human environment is a subset of natural environment and not a separate class).

That had long been my view as well. But then i came to realize that there is a difference between living "in" nature and living "against" nature. I then came to realize that "civilized" environment is not (a subset of) 'nature' - it is a systematic denial of the natural environment and its value.
It (Andrew's view) is an environmentalism where the gloomy view of human behavior is an ideological consequence rather than an actual conviction.

A couple points to make here.

1) I do not have a gloomy view of human behavior. I merely have a gloomy view of the behavior of a specific and narrow human culture.

2) Why does this have to be an environmentalism? Or in other words, how is resisting those who would exterminate ecosystems and poison water and air any different than resisting those who would murder innocent people?

For example. A member of MEND who destroys an oil platform is not an environmentalist - he is merely defending his landbase from the environmental degradation caused by industry. This is not some ideology - its about preserving the ability to live on non-polluted land and fish in non-polluted waters.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

That had long been my view as well. But then i came to realize that there is a difference between living "in" nature and living "against" nature. I then came to realize that "civilized" environment is not (a subset of) 'nature' - it is a systematic denial of the natural environment and its value.
Of course a human environment is a denial of a non-human environment, otherwise it wouldn't be a human environment. We do not act against our own comfort. Nor does any other species as far as I can tell.

It's perfectly, well, natural.

[SMadsen]

1) I do not have a gloomy view of human behavior. I merely have a gloomy view of the behavior of a specific and narrow human culture.
Which happens to be a function of our capability to exploit natural ressources.

2) Why does this have to be an environmentalism? Or in other words, how is resisting those who would exterminate ecosystems and poison water and air any different than resisting those who would murder innocent people?

For example. A member of MEND who destroys an oil platform is not an environmentalist - he is merely defending his landbase from the environmental degradation caused by industry. This is not some ideology - its about preserving the ability to live on non-polluted land and fish in non-polluted waters.

Andrew
Are you asking why resisting those who would corrupt environments is environmentalism? :ummm:

[Michael]

For example. A member of MEND who destroys an oil platform is not an environmentalist - he is merely defending his landbase from the environmental degradation caused by industry.
I consider ideology or motive totally irrelevant when adjudicating the law.

Destroying an oil platform is a crime. Doesn't matter what your reasons are for doing it, it is the action that counts.

[partofme]

I consider ideology or motive totally irrelevant when adjudicating the law.

Destroying an oil platform is a crime. Doesn't matter what your reasons are for doing it, it is the action that counts.


I agree. That kind of thought could be used to justify destroying almost anything man made.

[SMadsen]

I agree. That kind of thought could be used to justify destroying almost anything man made.
Or destroying abortion doctors.

[andrewl]

Of course a human environment is a denial of a non-human environment, otherwise it wouldn't be a human environment. We do not act against our own comfort. Nor does any other species as far as I can tell.

It's perfectly, well, natural.

There is still a distinction to make here though. In some human cultures the non-human environment is not denied - it is an integral part of the community and forms the basis for their subsistence, 'religion' and spirituality.

A book i recently read was People of the Deer by Farley Mowat. The environment of deer and the inuit/eskimo people was one and the same for those humans. Everything they did revolved around that animal.

In most non-civilized human cultures the connection to the land is undeniable.

Andrew

[andrewl]

I consider ideology or motive totally irrelevant when adjudicating the law.

Destroying an oil platform is a crime. Doesn't matter what your reasons are for doing it, it is the action that counts.

Self defense and preservation of a non-toxic landbase that people depend upon for survival trumps laws in a system rigged only to protect the ecocidal.

I guess its just a matter of opinion but appealing to law int his case rings almost completely hollow for me.

Andrew

[andrewl]

I agree. That kind of thought could be used to justify destroying almost anything man made.

How so?

andrew

[andrewl]

Or destroying abortion doctors.

How is abortion the same as destroying a landbase that people depend on to survive?

Andrew

[andrewl]

Which happens to be a function of our capability to exploit natural ressources.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Are you taking the position that because all cultures contain humans, all cultures are therefore the same? I..e, because we all have the potential to be fascists nazis we are all therefore fascist nazis?


Are you asking why resisting those who would corrupt environments is environmentalism? :ummm:As opposed to just self defense, yes. That is precisely what i am asking.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

How is abortion the same as destroying a landbase that people depend on to survive?
I have absolutely no idea.

I didn't say it was.

[SMadsen]

I'm not really sure what you mean here.
I mean that People of the Deer have or had the capability to exploit the deer so "everything they did revolved around that animal". Right until they become capable of exploiting another resource, in which case everything they do revolve around that.

This is why nomads stop moving around when it's no longer necessary to move around. No one moves around for fun. It's not comfortable.

[partofme]

How so?

andrew

Well just about anything we build takes up space on land.

[andrewl]

Well just about anything we build takes up space on land.

But not everything we build on land destroys the ability of people to have access to clean water, clean air, viable soil, and all the ecological services we require for life and the basic dignity of human beings (and all other non-human animals).

Andrew

[andrewl]

I mean that People of the Deer have or had the capability to exploit the deer so "everything they did revolved around that animal". Right until they become capable of exploiting another resource, in which case everything they do revolve around that.

This is why nomads stop moving around when it's no longer necessary to move around. No one moves around for fun. It's not comfortable.

However, they did not over-exploit the deer or live in denial that the deer and its environment were separate or independent from the culture and survival of the people of the deer.

Also, these people never would have had any need to be dependent on any other animal if not for the transformation of the deer from a source of culture, subsistence, and survival into a commodity. What followed was the over-exploitation of that animal by the European occupation of their lands. In fact, once they were no longer able to depend on that animal for their survival their culture, health, and population were completely devastated. That is far more uncomfortable than being a nomadic hunter. In other words, they stopped moving around because they were forced into a situation of dependence on european markets - and this was dehumanizing and a catastrophe for them.

There is a very critical distinction to make regarding a culture that eliminates, poisons, fears, and dominates nature and one that respects and incorporates nature into their culture.

Andrew

[partofme]

But not everything we build on land destroys the ability of people to have access to clean water, clean air, viable soil, and all the ecological services we require for life and the basic dignity of human beings (and all other non-human animals).

Andrew

But it limits natural habitat. And what about the energy used to heat buildings, for appliances, or for transportation. What would the solution to do these things and not cause some environmental damage?

[andrewl]

But it limits natural habitat. And what about the energy used to heat buildings, for appliances, or for transportation. What would the solution to do these things and not cause some environmental damage?

Having some impact on nature is not in any way the same as making a landbase uninhabitable or eliminating entire ecosystems. There are limits to the amount of environmental damage we should tolerate.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

However, they did not over-exploit the deer or live in denial that the deer and its environment were separate or independent from the culture and survival of the people of the deer.
We do not over-exploit cows, either, or live in denial that cows and their environments are separate or independent from the culture and survival of us, the people of the cow.

Also, these people never would have had any need to be dependent on any other animal if not for the transformation of the deer from a source of culture, subsistence, and survival into a commodity. What followed was the over-exploitation of that animal by the European occupation of their lands. In fact, once they were no longer able to depend on that animal for their survival their culture, health, and population were completely devastated. That is far more uncomfortable than being a nomadic hunter. In other words, they stopped moving around because they were forced into a situation of dependence on european markets - and this was dehumanizing and a catastrophe for them.
What followed peoples of deers was new ways to exploit ressources. That's it. And it will always follow people of as long as there are people and innovations to be made.

There is a very critical distinction to make regarding a culture that eliminates, poisons, fears, and dominates nature and one that respects and incorporates nature into their culture.

Andrew
There is no distinction to make between a culture that does all things you consider bad and one that does all things you consider good [I]except that you consider some things to be bad and some to be good. Humans do what every other species do and what every living organism has always done; trying to live the easiest, most comfortable and less expensive way they know how.

[andrewl]

We do not over-exploit cows, either, or live in denial that cows and their environments are separate or independent from the culture and survival of us, the people of the cow.

We over-exploit land for cows.


What followed peoples of deers was new ways to exploit ressources. That's it. And it will always follow people of as long as there are people and innovations to be made.

Im not really sure what your point is. The people of the deer were once a viable and independent culture, and then they were destroyed by the impacts of civilization on their land.


There is no distinction to make between a culture that does all things you consider bad and one that does all things you consider good [I]except that you consider some things to be bad and some to be good. Humans do what every other species do and what every living organism has always done; trying to live the easiest, most comfortable and less expensive way they know how.

There is absolutely a distinction to be made between a culture that can persist for thousands of years without destroying its landbase and one that cannot exist without destroying all landbases it comes into contact with.

Its quite sad that some people do not see this difference.

Andrew

[Michael]

There is absolutely a distinction to be made between a culture that can persist for thousands of years without destroying its landbase and one that cannot exist without destroying all landbases it comes into contact with.

Its quite sad that some people do not see this difference.

Andrew
You seem to be overlooking the point that those people who come from those cultures that can persist for thousands of years without destroying its landbase will drop that culture in a flash if given the opportunity to join a culture that destroys everything.

Heck, those people will line up and sell their first born child for the opportunity to escape from that ancient culture.

Nobody is jamming Hollywood culture and consumerism down your throat. People demand Hollywood culture and consumerism.

[andrewl]

You seem to be overlooking the point that those people who come from those cultures that can persist for thousands of years without destroying its landbase will drop that culture in a flash if given the opportunity to join a culture that destroys everything.

I disagree. Usually the imperialist omni-consumer culture forces the indigenous culture to conform by destroying their land and therefore the entire basis of their culture.

Heck, those people will line up and sell their first born child for the opportunity to escape from that ancient culture.

Then why have so many fought back against the destroyer culture? Why do indigenous people in the amazon fight back against logging corporations? Why do the lubicon of northern alberta fight back against the oil companies who poison their land and water? All indigenous cultures resist (or sometimes compromise) more than they line up to join.

Nobody is jamming Hollywood culture and consumerism down your throat. People demand Hollywood culture and consumerism.

It is absolutely being jammed down our throats. Most especially with children.

Andrew

[Michael]

I disagree. Usually the imperialist omni-consumer culture forces the indigenous culture to conform by destroying their land and therefore the entire basis of their culture.
Historical immigration patterns don't support this argument.

Then why have so many fought back against the destroyer culture? Why do indigenous people in the amazon fight back against logging corporations? Why do the lubicon of northern alberta fight back against the oil companies who poison their land and water? All indigenous cultures resist (or sometimes compromise) more than they line up to join.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that more native indians live in Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg than all the reserves added together. That's an example of native people voting with their feet. The ones left on the reserves are the die-hard fanatics - everyone else left already.

It is absolutely being jammed down our throats. Most especially with children.

Andrew
This is laughable. Nobody puts a gun to your head to get you to line up for tickets, or forces you to buy a tv. Besides, anyone who puts their kids in front of a tv has only themselves to blame (for buying the tv in the first place and then abandoning their children to it).

If you can figure out how to get people to stop demanding Hollywood/consumer culture, then you might have a chance. But pretending that consumer culture is something that is forced upon people against their will makes your arguments appear absurd. The vast majority of the human population likes consumerism and their MTV (and will go to great lengths to protect it and get more of it).

A very tiny minority of people choose otherwise.

[andrewl]

Historical immigration patterns don't support this argument.

The history of European colonization of north america does support the argument though.


You seem to be overlooking the fact that more native indians live in Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg than all the reserves added together. That's an example of native people voting with their feet. The ones left on the reserves are the die-hard fanatics - everyone else left already.

Or are you overlooking the fact that the choice between reserve or non-reserve does not include the choice to live as the pre-contact natives lived. That choice was taken away deliberately.


This is laughable. Nobody puts a gun to your head to get you to line up for tickets, or forces you to buy a tv. Besides, anyone who puts their kids in front of a tv has only themselves to blame (for buying the tv in the first place and then abandoning their children to it).

You are ignoring the potency of corporate propaganda, advertising and marketing on the human mind, and also how ubiquitous it is throughout the entire culture, not just in front of the TV. It is in schools, on the street, on buses and trains, pretty much everywhere.

If you can figure out how to get people to stop demanding Hollywood/consumer culture, then you might have a chance. But pretending that consumer culture is something that is forced upon people against their will makes your arguments appear absurd. The vast majority of the human population likes consumerism and their MTV (and will go to great lengths to protect it and get more of it).

A very tiny minority of people choose otherwise.

So are you suggesting that before there was pervasive corporate propaganda and its various mediums of delivery people were out on the street demanding that somebody provide it and then governments and corporations obliged them?

Before car culture did people demand that governments and corporations conspire to remove trains and develop roadways and suburbs?

Surely you can't be unaware of the fact that perceived consumer "needs" are first created by government/industry/corporations and then fulfilled by them.

Andrew

[Michael]

The history of European colonization of north america does support the argument though.
I don't believe it does at all.

The impetus for colonization in North America never came from anyone rejecting the economic model in Europe. That is a complete opposite interpretation of actual historical facts.

The Mayflower set (i.e. Brownists) came because they wanted a place to invoke a higher level of religious intolerance than was permitted in Western Europe. Many other immigrants in the early years came because they wanted to escape from the high level of religious intolerance that was common in Europe at the time. Many other British immigrants came because they sought the opportunity to make their fortunes in a new land (using the same techniques brought from home).

In the 19th century, the Irish and Scots came because they aspired to a better material existence in North America than was available at home. And in the early 20th century, the Italians and eastern Europeans, and in the latter 20th century, the Latinos have come looking for exactly the same thing as the Irish and Scots. They are looking for MORE capitalism and MORE consumerism than was available at home.

Or are you overlooking the fact that the choice between reserve or non-reserve does not include the choice to live as the pre-contact natives lived. That choice was taken away deliberately.
On the contrary, I'm specifically including reference to the fact that many natives in North America pushed very hard to have access to western tools and western techniques that they applied to destroy their own traditional lifestyles with almost no help from western colonialism at all. The Inuit provide the clearest example of this phenomenum.

I certainly am not going to defend western imperialist-colonial regimes that can and did abuse or take advantage of various native peoples. That certainly did occur. But I think you are being quite partisan on the issue in assuming that 'use and abuse' of natives was the absolute rule. The historical record is far more complicated than that.

Besides which, in every case where 'the western white man' took advantage of the native indian peoples, you can be sure that it could only have been achieved because the 'white man' had native indian allies every step of the way.

As it stands, I consider the native peoples to be as guilty or complicit in the destruction of their traditional cultures as they routinely accuse 'western' culture of.

Native groups in North America are of course in deep denial about this, preferring to play the 'victim role' as it is far easier and more profitable, but that's beside the point. As long as they want to play the role of innocent victims, dependent they will be. :shrug:

You are ignoring the potency of corporate propaganda, advertising and marketing on the human mind, and also how ubiquitous it is throughout the entire culture, not just in front of the TV. It is in schools, on the street, on buses and trains, pretty much everywhere.
I'm not ignoring anything. On the contrary, you appear to be projecting present circumstances that result from a couple hundred years of economic development to be the original cause of creating the process!

The 18th century English cotton mills didn't force thousands of people to want to buy colourful cotton print clothes. And they didn't use any propaganda at all to sell this product. And they couldn't build mills big enough or fast enough to keep up with demand from around the world. And the cotton mills didn't need television to pump the propaganda to get people to want to buy that product.

And even the 17th century English and Dutch traders didn't use any propaganda to make millions in profits from importing chocolate, tea and sugar for the masses.

Indeed, the whole history of capitalist development is striking in so far as that everything about it was totally illegal every step of the way under traditional feudal law. It was just the sheer popularity, public demand and demonstrated success that drove the process despite the efforts of religious institutions, governments and ruling aristocrats to thwart it.

There is no way one can say that capitalism has been anything but majority popular. Even the late 19th century radicals often as not were demanding better pay and better working conditions (better consumerism!) rather than revolution.

So are you suggesting that before there was pervasive corporate propaganda and its various mediums of delivery people were out on the street demanding that somebody provide it and then governments and corporations obliged them?
Pretty much, yes.

That's what the historical record shows. When the first cotton mills were built, the line up for those wanting to work there, and the line up of those who wanted to buy the product were figuratively endless.

Indeed, very low wages at that time were a factor of the law of (huge) supply and (comparatively low) demand for labor.

The peasants left the fields in droves. :shrug:

Before car culture did people demand that governments and corporations conspire to remove trains and develop roadways and suburbs?
The people created car-culture. Henry Ford famously raised the pay rates for his employees and sure enough, they just ran out and bought cars with the money - and the American car culture was born. No propaganda necessary.

Propaganda is useful only to get the laggarts who haven't bought a car yet to go out and buy one. Or to get people who have bought a car to buy another one. Propaganda can't create demand for cars out of thin air.

Surely you can't be unaware of the fact that perceived consumer "needs" are first created by government/industry/corporations and then fulfilled by them.
Surely you can't be ignorant of the Marxist critique that identifies the natural cycle of economic systems?

In the early days, the capitalist economic system is loved by all because it is so massively productive compared to the previous feudal system. But capitalism (like all economic systems) becomes less and less efficient and effective as a mode of production over time and thus, one can expect the system to act in dysfunctional ways as the end of its cycle approaches.

Thus in reality, human demand created the capitalist system. It is true that in our contemporary times, government/industry/corporations can and do invest a great deal of time, money and effort to propagate/preserve the system, but to assume that this 'result' was there from the beginning to create the process just isn't credible. Historically speaking, government/industry/corporations fought long and hard against the rise of capitalism used as a technique of production.

[SMadsen]

We over-exploit land for cows.

Im not really sure what your point is. The people of the deer were once a viable and independent culture, and then they were destroyed by the impacts of civilization on their land.

There is absolutely a distinction to be made between a culture that can persist for thousands of years without destroying its landbase and one that cannot exist without destroying all landbases it comes into contact with.

Its quite sad that some people do not see this difference.

Andrew
Andrew, I know the reply is late and Michael have said some of the things I would have said (and some I wouldn't say :) ) but my point is that humans are not really different. Whether you are a People of the Deer person or you elbow your way on the floors of Wall Street, the basic desires stay the same.

Those people would change places if they could or had to, respectively, simply because they want the same things in life and they pursue them the best way they know how.

That being said, I absolutely agree that we need to work on how to determine the best ways. And to come to terms with such ways. That's a continuous project for, well, for all living organisms it can reasonably be argued, but especially for self-contemplating creatures like us who can very easily set aside certain considerations in pursuit of the goal. But it's a goal that remains the same for all. It's as much a part of nature as those who pursue it are.

[Michael]

Andrew, I know the reply is late and Michael have said some of the things I would have said (and some I wouldn't say :) ) but my point is that humans are not really different. Whether you are a People of the Deer person or you elbow your way on the floors of Wall Street, the basic desires stay the same.

Those people would change places if they could or had to, respectively, simply because they want the same things in life and they pursue them the best way they know how.

Yes, this is essentially my point. Human nature is fairly consistent.

That being said, I absolutely agree that we need to work on how to determine the best ways. And to come to terms with such ways. That's a continuous project for, well, for all living organisms it can reasonably be argued, but especially for self-contemplating creatures like us who can very easily set aside certain considerations in pursuit of the goal. But it's a goal that remains the same for all. It's as much a part of nature as those who pursue it are.
Agreed, but this is particularly difficult to do.