Are we to blame?

[Joe]

Taking a longer view - all of these societies have developed from nothing. 70,000 years ago (more or less) humans lived in small tribes in Africa. That was it. Eventually, some of these Africans emigrated to Eurasia and began to develop local cultures. Around 10,000 years ago, agriculture was developed and spread like wildfire across the world.
The pockets of human development expanded and competed. Apes - especially chimpanzees do the same thing.
But human competition became more sophisticated over time and the scale of the conflicts grew from local tribal wars to country-sized conflicts to global competition.
Humans are an invasive species. We do what invasive species do. Are we blameworthy?
It is in our best interest to develop a global structure that accomodates all humans but it is not in our nature to accept cultures that differ from what we are used to. The European culture that developed out of the commingling of Neolithic MidEastern agriculturists with Paleolithic European hunter-gatherers has been most successful. It tends to dominate and crush or absorb competing cultures
IMNSHO - That's the way it is and that's the way it is going to be.
Is that brief enough for you, Scout?

[Scout]

Brief enough, thanks. You're saying that "to dominate and crush or absorb competing cultures" is a given?

[Joe]

Scout wrote: "Brief enough, thanks. You're saying that "to dominate and crush or absorb competing cultures" is a given?"
In a sense, that is what I am saying. We are primates - and that is the survival mode for primates. It might seem like we emerged from primitive existence a long time ago but on evolutionary scales, we have only been around for a short time.
Civilization as we know it only goes back a few thousand years. While we have struggled to get away from the old ways, we clearly have not exactly succeeded. Tribal and territorial imperatives are still the driving forces.
We are still apes at heart so trying to blame people for acting like apes is pointless. I refer you to "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris. It's ancient but it's still the best reference that I know of.

[Matthew]

Joe wrote: "Taking a longer view - all of these societies have developed from nothing. 70,000 years ago (more or less) humans lived in small tribes in Africa. That was it. Eventually, some of these Africans em..."

That's sound a wee bit like rationalization. The conquest and genocide of the New World, not to mention the slave trade, not to mention European expansion into the rest of the world cannot simply be shrugged off as "primate business". It occurred on a size and scale never before seen, but for some reason, we write this off as somehow being "inevitable" or just "business".

Europe's "success" was ensured by this process of conquest and genocide in the New World, which they then leveraged into conquering much of the rest of the world. Prior to this, European civilization was just catching up to their Asian betters. And today, that same balance is being struck again. Asia-Pacific region is becoming a power to rival Europe and the US, and Africa and South America are due to experience similar economic explosions

[Joe]

Matthew wrote: "Joe wrote: "Taking a longer view - all of these societies have developed from nothing. 70,000 years ago (more or less) humans lived in small tribes in Africa. That was it. Eventually, some of these..."
Not rationalizing - just commenting on historical realities. BTW the "Native" Americans behaved in the same way because that is how people behave.
The Europeans had better stuff but they lacked ethical and moral constraints.
Several books have been written by people who are smarter than me theorizing why the Europeans always seem to win.

[Scout]

Joe said, "Tribal and territorial imperatives are still the driving forces." I can agree with this. Our tribes these days are our families, our communities, our countries - and our instinct is to defend them and the territories they inhabit and depend upon for sustenance. I certainly have a visceral reaction when they are threatened.

[Scout]

And I can't refrain from saying that I think this was the basis for Kavanaugh's emotional testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he felt his family was being threatened.

[Mark]

I think capitalism is responsible for half the worlds problems, and I think fundamentalism, of any brand, is responsible for the other half.

[Scout]

I'd divide that into thirds and add oppressive liberalism.

[Ian]

I would add greed.

[Graeme]

Hi Ian, I think that leaves us with 133% problems...

[Ian]

Hi Graeme,

Which just goes to show we are in a pickle. However, from my experience in quantum mechanics, I say, RENORMALIZE! [It is no sillier here than there :-) ]

[Joe]

Graeme wrote: "Hi Ian, I think that leaves us with 133% problems..."
I'm pretty sure that humans are responsible for 100% of the problems in the world.
It's a bit confusing. Many of my friends insist it's white people. Others insist that it's men. All of them seem to agree that it's "old, white men."
So it must be me

[Philip]

I claim responsibility for the following
I have not cured cancer - sorry
I have not stopped global warming
i'm in employment and housing thereby preventing others from having my job or home
I don't give all my money away to charity
I'm male and have not decided to become transexual or non-sexual
I'm white - I have not attempted to change my skin colour apart from failed sun tan events
I'm not a millennial as I was born too late
My country used to run the largest empire on earth and used slavery and I did nothing to stop it.
My wife tells me it's my fault and therefore it must be.

[Graeme]

Nik wrote: "Pretty often I hear different opinions and explanations, attributing most mishaps in the world to what the West did and how and so on.
Sure, I guess the West is hardly angelic and altruistic in its..."

Going back to the original question, I think it's human nature to blame whoever is in power for the current ills of the day.

Western Civilization got to the Industrial revolution first and as a result conquered the world and built two back to back empires. The English and the American.

Were horrible things done? Absolutely. Is doing horrible things the essence of western civilization? No, it's the essence of dominion, which is the capacity to order someone to act against their best interest and have them obey.

The processes of dominion has been present throughout human history across all known cultures, including our own.

On the flip side, everyone posting on this thread has access to technology, wealth, and longevity that dwarfs that possessed by those who lived in the past. The presence of all those benefits are a function of the same world civilization that committed atrocities alongside the construction of the benefits.

Meet the human condition, the mix of good and evil appears to be unavoidable.

[Graeme]

Further to the above point, have a gander at this for some historical perspective on 'atrocity,'

REF: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/20...

[Ian]

Not an attractive list, Graeme.

[Graeme]

Instructive though.

[Philip]

Graeme wrote: "Further to the above point, have a gander at this for some historical perspective on 'atrocity,'

REF: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/20......"

I find it fascinating in the sense of the modern discussions of the impact of various events compared to historical events e.g. US Civil War compared to Rwanda genocide compared to Cromwell's invasion of Ireland.

[Scout]

Graeme said, "Were horrible things done? Absolutely. Is doing horrible things the essence of western civilization? No, it's the essence of dominion, which is the capacity to order someone to act against their best interest and have them obey."

I'm wondering how you would apply this to the U.S.

[Graeme]

Dominion is a key characteristic of human society.