[WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again

Fri Aug 27 23:20:08 UTC 2004

see below

On 27 Aug 2004, at 22:05, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth, Again
>
> If you cannot
> accept that there is at least one or two redeeming things to Western
> Civilization, then I don't know what I could say that you'd care to  
> hear.

Oh, I can /easily/ accept that there are "at least one or two redeeming  
things to Western Civilization".
You just picked a subject where we're hardly an example to the world.

If I don't misread your original email
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030035.html)
then you seemed to say that a
"willing[ness] to engage in a conversation about [one's  
views/contributions]"
was an
"ideal [which] is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to  
be taught to the
rest of the world."

You also appeared to say that "respect[ing] other people's POV" and  
being "willing to explain our own POV" and seeking a "fair & beneficial  
exchange between [our own POV and other people's POV]" was part of that  
same ideal which you perceived as an occidental contribution that  
should be taught to the world.

- I would question the overall willingness of "Western Civilization" to  
engage in a conversation about its own ideals/views, both historically  
and on balance also today. Famous quote: "You're either with us or  
against us."
- I would also question whether "Western Civilization" ever sought, or  
is seeking now, a "fair & beneficial exchange" of ideals. Beneficial to  
us, maybe. Fair, I doubt it.
- In essence: Meaningful multilateral discourse and compromise is  
hardly an occidental invention. We have a lot to learn in that area and  
are no way near being teachers on the subject. To the contrary, we're  
the bleeding school yard bullies who for all their mistaken self-esteem  
and deluded overbearing pride /just won't bloody listen/.

> And because it seems to be a point of anger here,

Anger? Hm. Immediately perceiving a strong objection as "anger" isn't a  
good example your aforementioned ideals, now is it?

> let me explain _precisely_
> what I mean by the term "Western Civilization": it is the common  
> heritage
> of Europe, the Americas, Australia & New Zealand. One tradition that  
> can
> be found amongst all of these people is the struggle towards tolerance,
> pluralism, & unfetered speech;

EXACTLY.
Our tradition is to STRUGGLE with these issues.
That's not quite the same as HAVING high standards of "tolerance,  
pluralism, & unfettered speech".

I'm not saying that other cultures don't struggle with them, but we're  
HARDLY the sole inventors or champions of these ideals.

> I am unaware of any serious argument
> that this tradition of thought was introduced from Africa, India, or  
> China.

Let me put it like this: I believe "Western" history (incl. present  
politics) as regards freedom of thought and free interchange of ideas  
is flawed at best.
Yes there are good and noble attempts. But we have consistently  
destroyed more such attempts than fostered them (and still do).

There are many examples. Let me give you just two:

1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/165363.stm
Quick aside: Which country /backed/ the coup (that unseated the  
democratically elected Chilean president) in connection with which Jara  
was killed?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/hob/prog_11.shtml
This is the companion website to a TV production -- you can also get  
the DVD:
http://video.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp? 
sourceid=00395996645644787198&btob=Y&ean=733961704464&VIEW=MNU

> And from my long reading of history, I know that Western Civilization
> hardly has a monopoly on violence, oppression, ignorance & hatred.

Not a monopoly, no. Far from it. But we still manage to clearly  
dominate the market.

> Wow. All of this verbage just because I tried to express (& again, I  
> admit
> I did so badly) the hope that despite all of the crimes, objectionable
> behavior & just plain shit that has been done, it would nice if there  
> was
> one positive ideal we in the west could pass on to not only the rest of
> the world, but also those who come after us.

We can TOGETHER with all other cultures try to pass on the better  
ideals OF THE WORLD.
But we should cut our omphaloskepsis and not claim to have invented  
them alone.
And before we try to "teach" other cultures anything, we should maybe  
try and mend our own ways. And I DO NOT say that we should "lead by  
example". Because there really isn't any reason why we always have to  
"lead". What's wrong with cooperation under equal terms?

> And the means this could be
> passed on is thru how we run Wikipedia.

Could be. The Wikipedia could become a noble instrument for together  
passing on the better ideals of the world. However, in the meantime,  
there is a digital divide. And a food divide. A senior US diplomat once  
said that 3000-odd people perished in the 9/11 attacks and we still  
mourn them, but we should not forget that 10,000 people die of hunger  
EVERY DAY. (His words, not mine. But in case you're not counting, that  
is more than three 9/11's a day.)

> I guess I've learned that this
> ideal of pluralism, tolerance, & mutual respect isn't even that  
> strongly
> held within the Wikipedia community.
>
> Geoff

Quite to the contrary, it absolutely is. What makes you think otherwise?

Thanks and regards,

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com