A question for my readers
May. 17th, 2004 12:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ambitious_wenchIn the video tape of the beheading of Nick Berg, the murders said it was in retaliation for the abuse of prisoners at Abu Grhaib.
How did that make you feel about the consequences of the abuse in a culture based on retaliation?
How did that make you feel about the consequences of the abuse in a culture based on retaliation?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 03:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 06:36 am (UTC)-m
no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 07:20 am (UTC)That's what makes us the civilised ones, and them the barbarians.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 10:21 am (UTC)Islam, like Christianity, is in theory and theology a religion of kindness and forgivenenss. The acts of those 5 in the video do not reflect the wishes of the entire culture.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 03:16 am (UTC)No. But those who approve or justify their actions certainly do. This is not a meme we can afford to have running around the human ideosphere.
Islam, like Christianity, is in theory and theology a religion of kindness and forgivenenss.
Having done some reading on the matter, I would be more inclined to say in wishful thinking - at least for the unlucky members of the Dar al-Harb.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 06:30 pm (UTC)Which is really rather meaningless until we make the leap to actually not being like that. It's not really much consolation to the guys who were abused to know that people over here felt so bad about it that they almost got around to finding out who ordered it.
Note that Rumsfeld's reaction to Abu Ghraib was to argue about whether sodomising somebody with a broomstick really counts as 'torture', and Bush's was phrased more as an apology for the existence of photos than for the actual abuses those photos depicted.
(Incidentally, rather a lot of 'that culture' also condemned Berg's murder in no uncertain terms; even Hamas and Hezbollah denounced it.)
AFAICT, the difference between your 'civilised' and 'barbarians' is in how much hand-wringing is involved.
Might and Right rethought
Date: 2004-05-17 09:39 am (UTC)By your standards, we also deserve to be crushed. We have a culture of abuse and neglect, of racism and sexism.
Does Right make Might?
This isn't Aurthurian England. All cultures have a vicious history, and some of us have been graced with the ability to make changes in how we thing as act as a people, culture or nation.
We have been dragged kicking and screaming in some cases toward an equitable culture. But we weren't crushed beneath the heel of a "morally superior" nation.
I don't buy into your "Morally Supior" view of us--presumably the UK and the US-- as justification for destroying other cultures. I find that morally lacking.
You, however, are welcome to your view. Just don't use it to justify violence against other nations and cultures.
Re: Might and Right rethought
Date: 2004-05-18 04:58 am (UTC)And when the Galactic Milieu turns up in orbit and demonstrates an objectively superior culture, I promise to be the first in line to request them to proctor us through the next stages of our psychosocial maturation.
However, since no greater, superior, and more evolved culture *than* ours exists anywhere to be found on this benighted planet, the question is meaningless.
(We don't have to be perfect. We just have to be better.)
Does Right make Might?
No, but unless Right has a serious death-wish, Right had better acquire Might, because Wrong has no scruples about doing so and using it.
This isn't Aurthurian England. All cultures have a vicious history, and some of us have been graced with the ability to make changes in how we thing as act as a people, culture or nation.
Yes. And ours happens to be the one that thought, perhaps, it was a good idea to not be. My particular branch of it, in the form of the British Empire, is the one that put an (unfortunately temporary) end to the slave trade, wife-burning, and (rather more permanently) the Thuggee cult, and assorted other outbreaks of barbarianism across much of the globe. Through, to a significant extent, the application of naked force. You're welcome.
I don't buy into your "Morally Supior" view of us--presumably the UK and the US-- as justification for destroying other cultures. I find that morally lacking.
Frankly, and we should be frank, I find the idea that other cultures have some intrinsic per-se virtue that exempts them from the moral law somewhat lacking, too. If something's wrong in Berkhampstead and Brighton, then it's equally wrong in Boston, Bosnia, Baghdad, Bechuanaland and Beta Hydri...
You, however, are welcome to your view. Just don't use it to justify violence against other nations and cultures.
...and where there is crime, there must also be punishment.
Re: Might and Right rethought
Date: 2004-05-18 09:14 am (UTC)exists anywhere to be found on this benighted planet, the question is
meaningless.
(We don't have to be perfect. We just have to be better.)
But that's just it--We AREN'T the greatest, most superior and more evolved culture on this planet. Not by a long shot. We AREN'T better.
By whose standard are you judging? Our own? By that example, *they* could claim to be the most superior, moral and evolved cultures. After all, they are using *their* standards!
No, but unless Right has a serious death-wish, Right had better acquire
Might, because Wrong has no scruples about doing so and using it.
Self-defense is one thing. Attacking another culture based on our own values for being 'immoral', 'barbaric', 'antiquated', et cetera is another. We do not have the right to impose our morals on cultures that --like our own--have extremists.
Yes. And ours happens to be the one that thought, perhaps, it was a good
idea to not be. My particular branch of it, in the form of the British
Empire, is the one that put an (unfortunately temporary) end to the slave
trade, wife-burning, and (rather more permanently) the Thuggee cult, and
assorted other outbreaks of barbarianism across much of the globe.
Through, to a significant extent, the application of naked force. You're
welcome.
And to what end? by your own admission, it was only temporary. And how much damage was done? I think you are also confusing extremists and entire cultures, too. You're showing inconsistancy in your reasoning, Cerebrate.
Frankly, and we should be frank, I find the idea that other cultures have
some intrinsic per-se virtue that exempts them from the moral law
somewhat lacking, too. If something's wrong in Berkhampstead and
Brighton, then it's equally wrong in Boston, Bosnia, Baghdad,
Bechuanaland and Beta Hydri...
"Moral law"? WHAT "moral law"? WHOSE "Moral law"? International law is another matter; International law also says that invading a country premptively is illegal as well. We have lost our moral high ground, if we ever really had it. International law has provisions for justice--we have no right to crush if there is a court of law to turn to. Morally, we have no right to crush other cultures. No matter how much we disagree with them.
And that is why the establishment of an international court under the Rule of International Law with the power to mete out justice is so damn important; Otherwise we will suffer wars for all eternity.
...and where there is crime, there must also be punishment.
No. Where there is crime, there must be JUSTICE. Rule of law is to be prefered over invasion. We have no right to take justice in our own hands.
Especially when we have commited crimes ourselves.
Re: Might and Right rethought
Date: 2004-06-12 07:36 am (UTC)*shrug*
Show me a better one.
By whose standard are you judging? Our own?
My own, of course. Who else's should I use - ah, unless I believe morality and ethics are relative...
By that example, *they* could claim to be the most superior, moral and evolved cultures. After all, they are using *their* standards!
...which is what you seem to be espousing. Fortunately for me, I don't - I believe they're absolute, and not merely absolute but objective. And as I myself prefer to be ethical/moral, and thus endeavour to make my personal standards match what I believe the absolute ones to be, it follows inexorably that I find my own standards in such matters the appropriate ones to use to judge any given situation, individual, culture, or other entity.
It helps that relativism in these matters tends to fall into logical incoherency very quickly. Exempli gratii: if one can't judge a culture, how can one judge individuals? If one can't, how is having law justifiable at all? In fact, how is international law justifiable by these standards? If there are 'meta-standards' of judgement which would be enshrined in such law, what makes them superior relative to national or individual standards? How can we judge our own society, if it is made up of individuals who are presumptively all (save only the insane) acting morally by their own standards? Likewise, how can we judge the actions of the past when they were moral by the standards of the age? How, in fact, can we make any moral judgements at all? Is any of this not entirely arbitrary?
Self-defense is one thing. Attacking another culture based on our own values for being 'immoral', 'barbaric', 'antiquated', et cetera is another. We do not have the right to impose our morals on cultures that --like our own--have extremists.
(I have an almost irresistible urge to ask whether, if they're all mild-mannered moderates, we can do what we like to them? But I shall resist for now.)
Re: Might and Right rethought
Date: 2004-06-12 08:08 am (UTC)Unfortunately, it turns out that running empires isn't an economically viable proposition. Perhaps it would go better now that mercantilism is on the ropes, although no-one's actually driven a stake through its heart yet, as witness the protectionist idiocy still too-often perpetrated by our governments, but that shall remain a question only answered by alt-hist authors.
I think you are also confusing extremists and entire cultures, too. You're showing inconsistancy in your reasoning, Cerebrate.
Can a culture not be extreme? The last time I checked, humans didn't come into the world moderate and inoffensive... in fact, I would go so far as to say that non-extreme cultures are few and far between, if any can be found at all.
"Moral law"? WHAT "moral law"? WHOSE "Moral law"?
THE moral law.
Y'all can't have it both ways, not and remain consistent.
Either there is a moral system, and they as well as we can be called to account; or
There isn't; and we're no more in the wrong than anyone else.
International law is another matter; International law also says that invading a country premptively is illegal as well. We have lost our moral high ground, if we ever really had it. International law has provisions for justice--we have no right to crush if there is a court of law to turn to. Morally, we have no right to crush other cultures. No matter how much we disagree with them.
International law is a phantasm. The existence of law implies the existence of a legal code, a judicial system, and an enforcement body, all three. Even if one admits the existence of one, the other two are still lacking.
And a good deal of what is bruited about as 'international law' is little more than wishful thinking about the way states *ought* to behave towards each other. In an ideal world, in which everyone plays the game scrupulously fairly. Right.
And that is why the establishment of an international court under the Rule of International Law with the power to mete out justice is so damn important; Otherwise we will suffer wars for all eternity.
*snort*
And how do you think 'international law' is going to be enforced? Saddam Hussein would no doubt have been as militantly unimpressed with an ICC injunction as he was with UN resolutions, and a Hitler or a Stalin would doubtless have got a good laugh out of the idea.
(If you invent some sort of World Police to fill this gap and give it the capacity to take on states, you've just reinvented the army. Only a) the rest of the world can't manage to outmilitarise the US now, and if it's heavily dominated by one country, it's not exactly "world", now is it? and b) you've given us a nice single-point-of-failure in the event the people holding the leash on this force become less than nice somewhere down the timeline.)
No. Where there is crime, there must be JUSTICE. Rule of law is to be prefered over invasion. We have no right to take justice in our own hands.
Especially when we have commited crimes ourselves.
Do I detect the scent of collective guilt?
Re: Might and Right rethought
Date: 2004-06-14 03:37 am (UTC)There are MANY moral systems. The very fact that we disagree so vigorously exemplifies this. And just what makes one "better"?
Until a moral system becomes codified, it's just personal. That's what the US Constitution was made for, to GUIDE us in making fair laws. Not moral laws, because you CAN'T legislate morality.
BTW, the very first codified moarl system was a product of Hammarubi, one of those "barbarians" you think should be crushed. WAY before your so-called "age of enlightenment".
Yes, international law is a farce now. But the law is a living, breathing thing, subject to growth and death. It wasn't until living memory (mine, for example) where it was morally and legally sanctioned for a man to rape his wife. Snorting at it isn't going to make it better.
The law can change. Even the US Constitution can change. Remember that the next time you have a beer or a shot of whisky in a bar over here.
As for how international law is going to be enforced, there are ways. Ways that don't involve the bombing of cities and cutting of ancient date palms, or the looting of antiquities. Ways that don't involve withholding medicine and food and parts for diagnostic machince, endangering an entire generation of future "enlightened barbarians".
Like not supporting brutal dictators in the first place. Or funding and arming fundamentalist extremists.
Just what the hell is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist", anyway?
Re: Might and Right rethought
Date: 2004-06-15 05:21 am (UTC)True. And here we come down to what I believe is our fundamental difference: I'm a ethical/moral absolutist. The conclusion I draw from the existence of multiple ethical/moral system is that many people are, quite simply, wrong. (For, I hasten to add, values of 'wrong' equal to 'incorrect'.)
And just what makes one "better"?
Results measured against axioms. This, of course, depends on what you consider axiomatic goods, but as they don't seem to spring full-formed from the head of the universe they're somewhat harder to agree on. Mine would run, approximately:
1. Wealth is good.
2. Freedom is better.
3. Order is best.
Although in this format, one would have to spend some time quibbling over my technical definitions of 'wealth', 'freedom' and 'order'. Knowledge, for example, is wealth for the purposes of this system.
Until a moral system becomes codified, it's just personal. That's what the US Constitution was made for, to GUIDE us in making fair laws. Not moral laws, because you CAN'T legislate morality.
Depends on what you mean. Moral thought, you can't legislate - yet - but moral behaviour you certainly can. Or, to put it another way, you might not be able to legislate morality, but you certainly can legislate ethics. (Of course, your ethical system might dictate that you *shouldn't* enshrine all your ethics into law, but that's another issue.)
Re: Might and Right rethought
Date: 2004-06-15 05:21 am (UTC)No, actually. Hammurabi's Code is something to be respected as one of those first, stumbling steps out of the darkness and towards the light. An, if you will, significantly enlightened document for its age.
Yes, international law is a farce now. But the law is a living, breathing thing, subject to growth and death. It wasn't until living memory (mine, for example) where it was morally and legally sanctioned for a man to rape his wife. Snorting at it isn't going to make it better.
Snorting at it, however, is not because it's bad *law*. It's because - while it may be *called* law - it isn't *functionally* law. There's no court with universal jurisdiction, no enforcement force - which was the main thrust of my point in a previous comment - nations can quite legally defect from internal agreements at will, and so on and so forth. And until these conditions - not the law itself, but the conditions that define it - change to make international law something of the same order as domestic law, it'll continue to be something entirely different.
Namely, a chimera consisting of a) things nations allow themselves to be bound by to serve their collective interest - such as Admiralty law, for example - and b) things nations will invoke when it serves their interests and ignore the rest of the time. And may even enforce, occasionally - if they happen to have a big enough stick to get away with it.
And for these conditions to change, something will have to convince the nations of the world, or at least those capable of projecting meaningful force internationally, all three or four of them, that it's in their self-interest to subordinate that self-interest to everyone *else* - and given what about two-thirds of the world's nations are like, that's not going to happen any time soon. And if they weren't, they wouldn't need to in the first place. Ergo, not going to happen.
The law can change. Even the US Constitution can change. Remember that the next time you have a beer or a shot of whisky in a bar over here.
All change, however, is not necessarily an unalloyed good.
As for how international law is going to be enforced, there are ways. Ways that don't involve the bombing of cities and cutting of ancient date palms, or the looting of antiquities. Ways that don't involve withholding medicine and food and parts for diagnostic machince, endangering an entire generation of future "enlightened barbarians".
Like not supporting brutal dictators in the first place. Or funding and arming fundamentalist extremists.
That's not an enforcement technique. That's an idealistic way of ensuring that maybe things might not get to that point in the first place (which I will not quibble with for the sake of the argument), but if they have - or so long as there's one dictator or fanatic in the world who's capable of doing things under his own power, or one nation who doesn't feel the same way about not supporting the wrong people - then you need an actual method for dealing with terrorists, terrorist-supporting states, and "rogue nations".
So, what will it be? Show me a better, workable solution, and I'll go right to it - but you have to have one first, y'see.
Just what the hell is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist", anyway?
None measurable.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 05:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 06:35 am (UTC)The beheading was bad and wrong.
I don't believe in 'retaliation' - I *do* believe that on some level there has to be a balancing of the scales: Justice.
Let those approved the abuse or who say that the abuse was nothing worse than a little hazing be stripped, forced to masturbate in front of cameras, forced to imitate sexual contacts and be forced to crawl behind their enemy wearing a leash.
And let the photos be passed around like postcards.
-m
no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 06:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 10:19 am (UTC)In my morality, the beheading was wrong. Period. I do not believe in capital punishment for any reason. But I am not responsible for their view; I am only responsible for my actions, and by extreme extrapolation, the acts of my government.
This is purely pragmatic on my part. If you know that your enemy has a culture of retribution, any insult will be acted on with violence. The key is not to act in a moraly reprehensible manner, because if you do, you are going to set off a violent response.
This makes the abuse even more hideous; We knew they would retaliate. An yet it was allowed to happen.
Now, if it was faked, what purpose did it serve to the perpetrators to say that it was done in in retaliation for the abuse?
It comes to mind that perhaps it was to invoke a response like Cerebrate's, a renewed desire to crush the barbarians, to exterminate them like the moral midgets they are.
I think though that lots of people may hold the same view I do; That the beheading was something that could have been avoided if we had indeed remained morally suporior by not torturing the prisoners and detainees.
And so the reason given for the murder won't incite everyone. In fact, if it was faked (and I strongly suspect it was), the reason given is indicative of what the government thinks of our reasoning abilities.
That we are the sort to be swayed easily to moral indignation; "we may have hazed a few prisoners, but at least we didn't behead anyone on tape!" is the hew and cry of the land; We have sung the song played for us.
The point is not to dehumanize the enemy. The point is to show them a better way, not to crush them beneath the steel heels of "civilization".
Because we are little better than they are.
We hold no moral superiority over other cultures that we did not gain by simply being given the time to grow and change. We should at least be willing to offer the same grace to others.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 04:06 pm (UTC)How can we expect to win the hearts and minds of their people with this sort of behaviour?
I must get dressed for work and dash but I could talk about this a lot more. Perhaps I shall later.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 03:11 am (UTC)Now, that's a hideous statement. The abuse was utterly wrong, hideous, etcetera per se; the pragmatics of it are irrelevant to that fact.
It comes to mind that perhaps it was to invoke a response like Cerebrate's, a renewed desire to crush the barbarians, to exterminate them like the moral midgets they are.
They'd better hope not. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that daily thanks ought to be given for responses like mine - that while the antique and barbaric culture that countenances things like this should be crushed, that doesn't mean the people should be.
If it *wasn't* for the much-maligned moral restraint of the West, we are much more equipped to exterminate the Faithful than they are the infidwl, thanks to the nuclear weapon and the harsh lesson we learnt from Hitler, A. and Stalin, I.
Fortunately, capability isn't equal to desire, because we, collectively, are better than that.
The point is not to dehumanize the enemy. The point is to show them a better way, not to crush them beneath the steel heels of "civilization".
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.
Because we are little better than they are.
We hold no moral superiority over other cultures that we did not gain by simply being given the time to grow and change. We should at least be willing to offer the same grace to others.
Ok, in my timeline the Enlightenment happened in the 18th century and built upon humanist ideas invented around the 14th and 15th, which in turn rested on older ideas dating back to classical times. What happened in your timeline?
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 10:47 am (UTC)No, it's not hideous. the pragmatics of it are not irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we (the government by and for the people, remember?) are accountable for the consequences of our (again, by and for the people) actions is part of our standards of ethics and morals. If indeed this video is genuine, and not a fabrication by the government to incite renewed xenophobia, then we ARE culpable for the death of Nick Berg. Personal, national and corporate responsibility and accountability are requisite for moral behavior *by our standards*.
They'd better hope not. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that daily thanks ought to be given for responses like mine - that while the antique and barbaric culture that countenances things like this should be crushed, that doesn't mean the people should be.
Excuse me, I'm confused: How can you crush a culture without crushing people? That's like killing a virus without killing the host.
If it *wasn't* for the much-maligned moral restraint of the West, we are much more equipped to exterminate the Faithful than they are the infidwl, thanks to the nuclear weapon and the harsh lesson we learnt from Hitler, A. and Stalin, I.
And where the HELL was that restraint when we invaded Iraq in the first place? We had NO PROOF of WMD or ties with al Queda. Yet we invaded on the whim of King George IV. We allowed the abuse of prisoners knowing full well that this was a culture of retribution, with extremists who would feel justified in beheading an immoral member of an immoral culture.
Fortunately, capability isn't equal to desire, because we, collectively, are better than that.
We have demonstrated repeatedly that we are not, neither objectively nor subjectively.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.
"You can lead a horticulture, but you cannot make her think" is the quote--Dorothy Parker. And if she will drink/think if she thirsts.
Ok, in my timeline the Enlightenment happened in the 18th century and built upon humanist ideas invented around the 14th and 15th, which in turn rested on older ideas dating back to classical times. What happened in your timeline?
In my timeline that culture gave us the knowledge of mathmatics, medicine, geometry and architecture. They taught us to write, to keep records, and the first codified legal system in the entire world. Remember, Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization. While our kind (yes, I'm of British descent as well as German and Spanish and Irish and Scottish) were running around naked wearing woad and extreme hairstyles held in place with lime and urine, these "barbarians" were making discoveries and advancement that would lead to the scientific wonders we know today.
There is a rich tradition of scholarship, of honor, of hospitality, of community and justice that extends to this very day. They have a complex morality that includes capital punishment by beheading with a sword; In some ways less painful than our executions by electrocution or leathal injection.
Are they 'better' than us? Are we 'better' than them? It depends solely on who you ask.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 04:12 pm (UTC)The corollary to the prospect of retaliation making the abuse more hideous is that, if no such prospect existed, it would be less hideous, which statement I would disagree with entirely. It is hideous and remains hideous entirely irrespective of what miscellaneous third parties may or may not do.
The fact of the matter is that we (the government by and for the people, remember?) are accountable for the consequences of our (again, by and for the people) actions is part of our standards of ethics and morals. If indeed this video is genuine, and not a fabrication by the government to incite renewed xenophobia, then we ARE culpable for the death of Nick Berg. Personal, national and corporate responsibility and accountability are requisite for moral behavior *by our standards*.
On responsibility and accountability, I must refer you to my posting here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/cerebrate/298421.html), where I go into my views on that metaissue. Needless to say, I vehemently reject your interpretation.
Excuse me, I'm confused: How can you crush a culture without crushing people? That's like killing a virus without killing the host.
My immune system does that every day...
Pushing the memes out of the ideosphere; basically, killing off the toxic ideas, which may involve killing some of their host-minds, but doesn't necessarily do so. It's been done before, and undoubtedly will be again.
Force is generally a means to this end, though. One way of killing off an idea is to make it very, very expensive for any given host to keep holding it; and lives are costly things to most people, especially their own.
And where the HELL was that restraint when we invaded Iraq in the first place? We had NO PROOF of WMD or ties with al Queda. Yet we invaded on the whim of King George IV.
Not retreading this ground today, thank you.
We allowed the abuse of prisoners knowing full well that this was a culture of retribution, with extremists who would feel justified in beheading an immoral member of an immoral culture.
Um, excuse me?
First, most of we knew nothing whatsoever about it until it was too late to do anything about it but clear up the mess and punish the guilty.
Second, the complicity of anyone below the bottom end of the command chain hasn't yet been proven to a standard that even a civil court would consider convincing.
And third, the day I let extremists of whatever culture dictate my actions, or my culture's actions, is the day I and it ought to be taken out and decently buried, because we're already dead for all useful purpose. We should not do these things because they are wrong, not because they might piss off a bunch of savages with anger issues.
As for the 'immoral member of an immoral culture' line, my response ain't even printable.
We have demonstrated repeatedly that we are not, neither objectively nor subjectively.
Last I checked, the world didn't have any large areas of steaming radioactive glass, and we aren't running any death camps. I figure that's about as objective as can be asked for.
"You can lead a horticulture, but you cannot make her think" is the quote--Dorothy Parker. And if she will drink/think if she thirsts.
I didn't like the way that sounded in context, hence the mixed metaphor. As for thirsting, I really wouldn't hold my breath, and the rest of the world can't afford the waiting.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 04:13 pm (UTC)Point of order: you're talking about Arab culture, rather than Islamic culture. And if I'm being picky, I read Greek, Egyptian, Greek, Egyptian, Egyptian, Sumerian, and I'd have to dig out my reference books, but certainly long before Islam came on the scene, bearing in mind Hammurabi.
And, yes, I am aware of the geographical location of Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Persia, etc. but the cultural links there are getting so tenuous as to be damn near nonexistent.
Remember, Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization. While our kind (yes, I'm of British descent as well as German and Spanish and Irish and Scottish) were running around naked wearing woad and extreme hairstyles held in place with lime and urine, these "barbarians" were making discoveries and advancement that would lead to the scientific wonders we know today.
Indeed, but check the dates. al-Khwarizmi's in my own field, but he died around 850. I used to study alchemy as a hobby and came across Avicenna (d. 1037) and spent a summer fascinated by Jabir (Geber) who single-handedly discovered a lot of later chemistry - the notion quantitative analysis, for a start - who died in 803. It's much the same in astronomy (All those star names beginning with al-? I'd wondered about that, back in the day).
Great men. Great achievements. A great foundation which we gladly stole, um, copied and incorporated into 'Western' civilisation as it now is. But also, alas, great history.
That culture's a long timn gone, and its successor... well, that one's not so good.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 09:28 am (UTC)still, we are a culture of retaliation too.
we just call it "accountability."
no subject
Date: 2004-05-17 04:09 pm (UTC)Retribution is one thing, invading countries and killing innocent civilians is entirely another.