Blame use of CPI for low interest rates

ValiantSon

Sapphire wrote: »

Your analysis is anglo-centric. You have ignored the fact civilization developed in Asia and Africa before it did in Europe. I didn't actually say anything about geo-specific civilizations, I talked about human civilization as a whole.

No, my broad statement is not 'anglo-centric'. By our society, I meant European civilisation, including 'anglo civilisation'. There were many civilisations in human history and prehistory, and each one was different and unique. I don't think you can talk about 'human civilisation as a whole'. I know full well that civilisations (in the form of city-states rather than nations) developed in the Near East (Mesopotamia and Anatolia) and in India, for example (the Harappans) several millennia before ours. I've studied the former and have been involved in its archaeology so know a fair amount about it. There is too little known about the Harappans to form many conclusions about them.

You can talk about human civilization as a whole; you are simply wrong about that.

I was talking about human civilization, and you introduced an anglo-centric viewpoint.

Sapphire wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that your so-called, "stuck in a rut" societies are not civilised? Or are you suggesting that there has been no technical advances coming from within them? That would also be wrong.

Really? Some do not seem to have produced many 'technical advances'.

Wow! So wrong! Please name societies that have not produced any technological advances.

Sapphire wrote: »

Hmmm, you're getting dangerously close to representing the idea of the 'white man's burden'. Aboriginal society was civilized; technical advancement and civilzation are not the same thing.

What are you talking about? I mentioned nothing about Australian Aboriginals and 'white men' and any 'burden'. I was merely talking about how the Aboriginal societies of Australia had remained at a certain level because they did not need to 'progress' and lived in harmony and balance within their environment. They had their own culture, with myths and legends passed down through elders that are thought by eminent geoscientists to describe geological events millennia ago, long before the development of writing some 2,000 years ago in some other parts of the world.

I think you know full well what I m talking about, but just don't want to admit that your comments were pejorative, and based on an assumption that white, anglo-centric, western society represents the advanced, and others are inferior. This is view that you are edging towards, and the one that I have challenged. Now, you are suddenly well aware of aboriginal civilization. Priceless!

Sapphire wrote: »

No, history is not cyclical. This is one of the great myths, but neither is it linear. Linear history would suggest progress, in the mould of the Whig view, but this has frequently been demonstrated to be false. Cyclical history fails to appreciate the unique characteristics of all events and socities, and instead opts to draw superficial comparisons to reach a flawed view.

And many would disagree with this view, but this is too complex an issue to be tackled here.

The debate is almost dead in academia, but feel free to carry on arguing for cyclical history if you want.

Sapphire wrote: »

I do, however, take exception to the idea of, "great civilizations".

In many people's view, though obviously not in yours, a 'great civilisation' can easily be characterised as such by the 'advances' it leaves behind (architecture, artefacts, visual imagery and so on). But again, too complex an issue to be tackled here.

Yes, in many people's view, but that doesn't mean that they are right.

Sapphire

The debate is almost dead in academia, but feel free to carry on arguing for cyclical history if you want.

Yes, in many people's view, but that doesn't mean that they are right.

Nothing that you, or today's academia, put forward is necessarily right, either. I still have no idea what you mean by 'anglo-centric', but then I am not an 'anglo'.

None of it matters, anyway. Events in future will prove/disprove what is said here, whatever theories people come up with to justify their world views and current fashions.

System

Valiant - you know some tribes, good as they may be, lack modern luxuries or modern level of economy or medicine or nice housing and that is probably all sapphire meant by "less civilised" - it wasn't thinking bad of these cultures, it doesn't need a defensive response, chillax

Also I think we sometimes try to preserve these tribes because we like to observe their culture, but against the tribespeople's best interests - they're born into a tribe but shouldn't be denied the right to integrate our of existence of they do want our modern life

ValiantSon

Sapphire wrote: »

The debate is almost dead in academia, but feel free to carry on arguing for cyclical history if you want.

Yes, in many people's view, but that doesn't mean that they are right.

Nothing that you, or today's academia, put forward is necessarily right, either. I still have no idea what you mean by 'anglo-centric', but then I am not an 'anglo'.

None of it matters, anyway. Events in future will prove/disprove what is said here, whatever theories people come up with to justify their world views and current fashions.

You keep telling yourself that academics don't understand history.

ValiantSon

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Valiant - you know some tribes, good as they may be, lack modern luxuries or modern level of economy or medicine or nice housing and that is probably all sapphire meant by "less civilised" - it wasn't thinking bad of these cultures, it doesn't need a defensive response, chillax

It is a completely pejorative assessment and shows a lack of understanding.

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Also I think we sometimes try to preserve these tribes because we like to observe their culture, but against the tribespeople's best interests - they're born into a tribe but shouldn't be denied the right to integrate our of existence of they do want our modern life

Have you any evidence for this, or is it another one of your thought experiments?

Sapphire

ValiantSon wrote: »

You keep telling yourself that academics don't understand history.

I don't 'keep telling' myself that 'academics don't understand history'. Academics, however, no matter their level of knowledge, are perfectly capable of adjusting historical facts to fit in with their own perceptions, popular trends, political conditions and/or their personal world views. There wouldn't be the plethora of books on important events in human history, each with its own angle, if that were not the case. Instances of revision of history happened, for instance, in the countries that were under Soviet communism, where children in schools and university students were brainwashed by academics who taught outright lies even about contemporary developments in Western European life; and it happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. (The result of such teaching helped to contribute to the deaths of millions of people.)

There is really no need to be so defensive. You can just agree to disagree, as I do with your some of your viewpoints.

ValiantSon

Sapphire wrote: »

I don't 'keep telling' myself that 'academics don't understand history'. Academics, however, no matter their level of knowledge, are perfectly capable of adjusting historical facts to fit in with their own perceptions, popular trends, political conditions and/or their personal world views. There wouldn't be the plethora of books on important events in human history, each with its own angle, if that were not the case. Instances of revision of history happened, for instance, in the countries that were under Soviet communism, where children in schools and university students were brainwashed by academics who taught outright lies even about contemporary developments in Western European life; and it happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. (The result of such teaching helped to contribute to the deaths of millions of people.)

There is really no need to be so defensive. You can just agree to disagree, as I do with your some of your viewpoints.

That's fine, but some of what you write is just outright wrong. I'm not going to agree to disagree about something when you are wrong. Furthermore, what you take to be defensiveness is actually engagement with a point. If you don't like it, then don't engage.