Empire, Imperialism and other geo-political naughtiness

[Sander]

Hmm, well, as welsh said, the main point of argument shouldn't be winning, but learning, if you think of an argument as a way to gain intellectual victory, you may be thinking about it the wrong way, it is mainly a way to sare thoughts, because rest assured that any one entering into a debate will usually know what he is talking about enough to make his point valid. Also, there is usually a certain amount of belief in one's correctness involved, especially with people who are religious.

I will agree, though, that the gun control debate HERE has mainly been a bunch of posts circling around eachother, and repeating oneself. Meh...

 

[welsh]

IIt will also be diving down to wrecks( our instructors are going to dive into tirpitz this wekeend) and other things, there is no such ting a seals and oters in lofoten and there is no sharks. I Have a drysuit and our teacher is very experienced (1000 dives or so) more than 50 of them with killer whales.

I see your points about argument welsh, but my english teacher actually mentioned gun controll and american foregn policy as an example of things that you should be carefull about. My english teacher, is by the way from the us, and he is rather funny character. And as i see it he is very correct about the weapon controll issue.

it is better to leave such issues before they turn nasty, as i notice our great moderators also have noticed.

Wreck diving rules. I did some in Southeast Asia and had some fun. There is a cruiser or battleship off New York, but its not the safest dive. Dust picks up with sudden changes in current, and divers have gotten lost down there. Still night diving and wreck diving are great, and I think diving on the Tirpitz would rule. I am still hoping to go to Australia to dive with seals and penquins, but the sharks also worry me a bit. Off Thailand, the sharks weren't that bad, but Australia has Great Whites.

As for the debate- you are right that extremism kills good logic and some debates one just shouldn't get into. I would say arguing about the existence of God is futile- its unfalsifable and thus illogical. But arguing about Church and State makes sense. That people get heated is a problem.

However, the problem with extremism is that it blots out logic and clear headed thinking. If you accept that free speech is important for the market of ideas, than its good to argue logically, even against the extremist. While the extremist may be unwaivering in his argument, the audience isn't. Eventually others might look at the extremist and say, "Dude you are like, so fucked up." In which case the extremist realizes that "hey either I am alone in being right, or no one cares about my ideas, or maybe I need to think about this some more."

Sander- Diving rules! ANd China in the 15th Century is mostly about tributary relations. THe Chinese historically were more interested in the middle kingdom (China) than neighbors. The word for China in Chinese itself, zhong quo, means middle kingdom- the middle between heaven and earth- not quite divine but better than the rest. But if you look at Chinese geography it makes sense- nasty jungle to the South, mountains and desert to the West, barbarian plains to the North.

Kharn- Socialist? Ha, I have been called worse. Being called naive kind of pisses me off though.

Ancient- Gwydion's alright. Honestly, after teaching so many people of his age (19), its nice to have someone who has an opinion and is willing to argue it. The mix of guns and gun is kind of scary though.

 

[Sander]

I've heard before that diving rules, a real good friend of mine got into it when he went to Ko San Hui(Thailand) for two or three weeks.

Meh, is China realy that uninteresting at that time? Well, I suppose you may very well be right, seeing as how I know nothing of them, and that if there had been great conflict I would've(For instance, I do know a bit about the mongols..).

Kharn-Why not do your speech about imperialism now? It'd get something off the ground here.

Socialist: WHy would that be a bad thing? It might be just as bad as calling someone a religious fanatic(Not in the suicidal way..). Ofcourse, it may be illogical, since in the way of FULL socialism, always stands human nature. Meh, being idealistic isn't bad, though, as long as you realise what is and what isn't feasible.

Extremists: What I find interesting, is how people very pro-freedom of speech tend to be very irritated and even pissed off at extreme views(I used to be one of them, well, a year ago or so, I hope I've changed).

Hmm, question for everyone(mainly Dutch people who understand the workings of our politics), how realistic would it be to start a political party(Let's give it an ideology of extreme socialism-everyone earns the same amount of money per hour, but are allowed to earn more if their bosses see fit, the government would compensate for every job earning under that point. That shouldn't be so extreme and silly that it's completely blown away.), and then participate in the next elections. How much would it cost? And how much chance do you have of getting a seat?
And, is it allowed for a sixteen year old to run a party?? Hmm...

 

[Brother None]

Sander; you have to become 18 before you take your seat in order to run (i.e. you can be 17, but you have to turn 18 before the new Chamber is instituted, usually a week or so after the elections)...

Also, the most Left-Wing SERIOUS party in Holland is the CPN (I don't count the Greens (DESTROY ALL TVS AND CARS!) or the Socialists (DESTROY ALL CAPITALISTS!), because they can't be taken seriously), and the CPN is basically a slightly lefter version of the SP, not really communist either...Marxism just doesn't work, y'know...

And I can't make my speech about Imperialism now, I forgot what I wanted to say.

I wish Xotor was here so I could scrap it out with him again. Loved talking about the American system of government with the guy. It was more a bare-fist fight than any kind of discussion.

That said, I'm worried, really worried about the Dutch Educational institutions. We've been lapping behind and are now officially worse than America (sorry, Sander, it's true. Our colleges, in particular, are not as good as America, even though it's been vice versa for ages),

And how do they want to solve it? Take over the American system!

How many times must an American system of running things FAIL here before those damned people see it just doesn't work that way?!

 

[Sander]

..

Didn't the CPN just merge with GroenLinks in 198(*) or something?? I mean, I haven't heard of those guys except for history class.

Also, SP is just turning into PvdA 2, they're going from relatively extreme socialist, to moderate socialist stuff.

Hmm, well, if I start now with the preperations of that party, I should be eighteen before the next elections(If the cabinet doesn't fall, might happen though). You know what, I'm actually going to do it and run if I'm able to. Just to see how easy/hard it is to get into the government(With actual opinions on all sorts of things, not like the Party of Parties(Fun!!) or the Party for Animals(Animals!! Yeahhh!!)). Might be very very interesting....

 

[Brother None]

Didn't the CPN just merge with GroenLinks in 198(*) or something?? I mean, I haven't heard of those guys except for history class.

Also, SP is just turning into PvdA 2, they're going from relatively extreme socialist, to moderate socialist stuff.

Yeah, NCPN, sorry.

And don't insult the SP, I'll put the smackdown on your ass.

Also, running a political party tends to be very expensive and difficult...

 

[welsh]

You know, no surprise if the Dutch are not able to adopt the American college system. When Henry Ford had the assembly line going, folks for Europe came over to see how he was able to mass produce cars. Ford showed off his assembly line at the plant. When the Europeans went back, they couldn't pull it off. Took them years.

American college system inferior? Ha! I laugh at that remark. But then I am teaching and attending a most excellent university, so I am biased.

15th Century China- No, actually Chinese history really is pretty neat. What happened to the Mongols when they took over is an especially cool story. It's just that I haven't done much China lately and will need to take another look at it.

 

[OnTheBounce]

When Henry Ford had the assembly line going, folks for Europe came over to see how he was able to mass produce cars. Ford showed off his assembly line at the plant. When the Europeans went back, they couldn't pull it off. Took them years.

The reason most Europeans couldn't cope w/American-style assembly lines has a lot to do w/the vast geographic distances in the US of A. Europeans were used to the idea of a "fitter" who would take a replacement part and a set of files and make the part fit the particular device. This worked, provided that a fitter was handy and the Americans did the same thing. Then came the westward expansion and suddenly if a settler had a water pump or gun that broke he couldn't simply ride into town and have the fitter take care of things. Basically, they needed "drop in" parts that were built to much tighter tolerances.

This was the need that drove US industrialists to manufacture things to ever tightening tolerances and why Ford could even consider using an assembly line in the first place. It also made life easier for the automotive and other industries in general, even when there weren't using assembly line techiniques.

The problem then is that while a certain system may be fairly simple, there are usually lots of issues lurking in the underpinnings. This is one of the reasons that I cringe at the thought of NL adopting the US school system, not to mention some other reasons, like the one-sidedness of US education, but I won't start whinging about the "crisis in the humantites" in the business and scientific fields, or the utter lack of scientific education on the part of the students of the humanities. Basically, education is geared toward a culture. Just because something works in one place doesn't mean it will work in other places.

OTB

 

[welsh]

I remember studying this and thinking about the interchangeable parts/ Eli Whitney etc. stuff. And I totally agree with why the US adopted the assembly line so early, and I think its a very interesting story.

But the thing is that Ford wasn't even hiding his methods, but was showing it off to the European engineers. Don't get me wrong- I don't want to suggest a lack of intelligence on the Europeans part. In many things the Europeans were far advanced than Americans- including on notions of bureaucratic governance.

Rather, like you mentioned below, it is often difficult for complex systems of organization to transfer from one culture to another. This is even true when the society offering the technological know how (here organizational system) is being very generous in allowing the adopting to learn its system. This seems to be another one of those places were culture tends to rear its ugly head.

As Kharn pointed out earlier with regard to transplanting democratic governance, sometimes cultures have a very difficult time adapting and can only do so when they make an effort to adapt to their unique circumstances. - This is where you were going with this, right Kharn?

The problem then is that while a certain system may be fairly simple, there are usually lots of issues lurking in the underpinnings. This is one of the reasons that I cringe at the thought of NL adopting the US school system, not to mention some other reasons, like the one-sidedness of US education, but I won't start whinging about the "crisis in the humantites" in the business and scientific fields, or the utter lack of scientific education on the part of the students of the humanities. Basically, education is geared toward a culture. Just because something works in one place doesn't mean it will work in other places.
OTB

On some of these issues I will try to respind. Lots of the science, engineering, health, even business and law schools have gotten into the business of selling services out to the public. Its a means of raising revenue and staying highly funded. THe unversity system in the States is very competitive, and a major part of that competition is purely financial. How much money do you got.

Humanities and Social Sciences don't do so well because they have less to sell that people want to buy. One hears this bitch a lot of professors- why they get paid so little and yet do so much more work than law or business faculty. THe answer is, of course, because of market value.

There has also been increasing support of funding from the government on sciences. Simple reason- there are too many soft science/humanity types and not enough scientists for the country's future.

That said, the other problem with the University system is fashion. Academics are a high fashion industry, one gets a reputation by doing cutting edge research and writing, which means "what's hot" in the academic community so that your peers give you high praises. Often what's lost in the process is social utility- but this is not always true. Humanities have become increasingly interested in post-modern theories, law schools teach often teach more law and economics than law. My field, politics, seems divided between post modernists on one side, and those who support more economic based theories on the other.

The consequence of this is that in their desire to be higher in the rankings, universities often turn out students that serve little social utility or which have few skills that transfer back into the real world-thereby doing both the student and society a disservice while supporting their own agenda to receive a higher rank.

Personally I find this ethically disturbing, especially in public universities. It's one of the reasons why I recommend students to pursue a mixed program which balances education in marketable skills, career advancement and critical/logical thinking. At the same time however, I think that college should be about education of the individual- the pursuit of intellectual fulfillment and curiousity and which should transend their period at the university.

As for the University's desire for rank and prestige- fuck em. The university's first responsibility is to its students. Happily, I am at a pretty good school where a lot of these issues don't come up (but that's because its generously endowed).

 

[Ancient Oldie]

That said, the other problem with the University system is fashion. Academics are a high fashion industry, one gets a reputation by doing cutting edge research and writing, which means "what's hot" in the academic community so that your peers give you high praises. Often what's lost in the process is social utility- but this is not always true. Humanities have become increasingly interested in post-modern theories, law schools teach often teach more law and economics than law. My field, politics, seems divided between post modernists on one side, and those who support more economic based theories on the other.

The consequence of this is that in their desire to be higher in the rankings, universities often turn out students that serve little social utility or which have few skills that transfer back into the real world-thereby doing both the student and society a disservice while supporting their own agenda to receive a higher rank.

Personally I find this ethically disturbing, especially in public universities. It's one of the reasons why I recommend students to pursue a mixed program which balances education in marketable skills, career advancement and critical/logical thinking. At the same time however, I think that college should be about education of the individual- the pursuit of intellectual fulfillment and curiousity and which should transend their period at the university.

As for the University's desire for rank and prestige- fuck em. The university's first responsibility is to its students. Happily, I am at a pretty good school where a lot of these issues don't come up (but that's because its generously endowed).

I had read an article about this very same growing trend a while ago by some Harvard professor (wish I could remember his name), how specialization and the need for professors to offer something unique and create small niches for themselves has lead to a devaluation of education. He then cited some ludicrious courses that were being offered ("studies on the sexuality of marxist lesbians" was one I remember vividly) that really made me laugh. Sad thing is, he is correct, and unfortunately, I don't think its going to change, since many professors want to make a name for themselves and will therefore make up things like this so that they can get more funding for whatever endeavors they wish to embark on.

 

[OnTheBounce]

Rather, like you mentioned below, it is often difficult for complex systems of organization to transfer from one culture to another. This is even true when the society offering the technological know how (here organizational system) is being very generous in allowing the adopting to learn its system. This seems to be another one of those places were culture tends to rear its ugly head.

Yes, that's what exactly I was getting at.

The French had serious problems w/this concept even as late as WWI. If you've ever heard of the Chauchat light machine gun you've probably heard of what a useless piece of dung it was and how prone to jamming it was. This was due to the fact that French industry was overburdened w/wartime production at the time, and hence they basically used whatever spare capacity they could find, farming out the various parts to sub-contractors. The thing was a disaster due to its faulty tolerances. (Interestingly enough it was the most widely used light machine gun in the world when WWII broke out, though...)

As Kharn pointed out earlier with regard to transplanting democratic governance, sometimes cultures have a very difficult time adapting and can only do so when they make an effort to adapt to their unique circumstances.

Yes, just like w/just about anything, especially one as personal as a form of gov't. I still cringe when I think of the Japanese trying to shoehorn themselves into a Marxist frame of mind. (Admitedly it never was very popular there, but it was a significant enough movement to merit mentioning.) This even though they are very adept at cultural borrowing and subsequent "Japanification". Unfortunately people often end up like Cinderella's step-sisters, having to hack of heels or toes to get into the shoe.

There has also been increasing support of funding from the government on sciences. Simple reason- there are too many soft science/humanity types and not enough scientists for the country's future.

One of the problems w/a lot of the "soft" sciences is that they are a dumping ground for washed out engineering majors. Since the US is so oriented on money-making people want lucrative jobs that will allow them to get that trophy house, trophy spouse, trophy children and trophy car. Hardly anyone starts out wanting to be quite a few of the most popular majors around today, but that's where they all head once the spectre of mathematics rears it ugly head. Unfortunately one of these fields is education. Something like 80% of Primary Education majors in the US started off wanting to be something else. Not good...

That said, the other problem with the University system is fashion. Academics are a high fashion industry, one gets a reputation by doing cutting edge research and writing, which means "what's hot" in the academic community so that your peers give you high praises...

True. Another problem, too, is that people don't actually want to get out there "in the trenches", but would rather be administrators. (Which, of course, is where the real money is at.) I got a hold of the budget for the local community college back in '99. They had an annual budget of $31 million, of this only about $2 million actually left the administration building and went for instructor salaries, etc. The highest paid instructor made $75,000, while the president made $365,000. Something's wrong there, methinks...

One of the other problems is that we've begun to see technology as a panacea. I remember I was taking a course on the History of Technology and had to talk to the professor after class. One of his Graduate Teaching Assistants came in and informed him that they were installing projectors and monitors in each class in the building at a cost of $25,000/room. His response was, "What?! All I want is some decent-sized maps. That's all I need! They give us this, but I have to pay to drive to Albuquerque to go to a fucking symposium?!" He was right. Students will be just as befuddled sitting in front of a series of screens as they will be otherwise. Let's face it, when you have people that habitually don't do the readings...

The consequence of this is that in their desire to be higher in the rankings, universities often turn out students that serve little social utility or which have few skills that transfer back into the real world-thereby doing both the student and society a disservice while supporting their own agenda to receive a higher rank.

I agree. This also becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of anti-intellectualism that the US is stewing in, too. Seeing what's going on in today's universities I have to say that some of it is merited, however, it could be set straight very easily, if only we could get everyone to play along.

...I think that college should be about...the pursuit of intellectual fulfillment and curiousity...

Students in US universities are -- by-and-large -- not curious, though. That's a battle that's being lost down in the elementary schools and by the time they reach college it's largely too late.

...studies on the sexuality of marxist lesbians...

Ooooh! Where do I sign up for that one?!

Unfortunately what AO points out is also another self-perpetuating cycle. It seems as though we've forgotten that while knowledge is institutionalized to a certain extent, it doesn't mean that every human being is born w/it. While it's not very sexy to teach what has been taught for generations rather than what's "hot" at the moment that's the bread and butter we're in need of. Better to learn about Marx than about the lewd exploits of some of his adherents, I say.

Specialization is revolting in a human being in general, and in an academician in particular. The main crime is that it reduces learning essentially to the memorization of trivia that will have few or no connections to other things that one learns. Systemic and thematic understanding are more important than being able to regurgitate on command.

OTB

 

[Brother None]

American college system inferior? Ha! I laugh at that remark. But then I am teaching and attending a most excellent university, so I am biased.

I said American colleges are currently better than Dutch colleges.

This is new, though, the Dutch, together with a number of other EU countries, have had better colleges and a generally better educated population than the US of A. The second may not have changed, the first has.

Why, exactly, these people think the best way to get back to their old level of quality is not going back to the old system but copying a system that might well not work is beyond me.

As Kharn pointed out earlier with regard to transplanting democratic governance, sometimes cultures have a very difficult time adapting and can only do so when they make an effort to adapt to their unique circumstances. - This is where you were going with this, right Kharn?

Mostly, yes, but this is still assuming democracy is the best form of government EVERYWHERE, and I don't think this is true. It might've worked for us, this doesn't mean it'll work everywhere.

Again, I'm pretty much opposed to the whole "spread of democracy" thing, and before you take it as another "good culture bad culture"-thing, I must point out again I do not really consider democracy an absolute superior form of government, so it has nothing to do with good or bad cultures.

If it works, use it, if it doesn't, don't, it's really folly to try and press democracy on everyone, it oftimes causes more problems than it solves.

 

[welsh]

Just a couple of quick thoughts to OntheBounce- I agree with a lot of what you are saying, except for a few things.

A lot of kids aren't driven for the money. For example, where I am there is a very good School of Commerce, which would give the students a basic business degree which usually translates into a very good salary on graduation. It is popular- but not to the level you might think. There are a lot of students who want to pursue degrees in the social sciences or humanities just because they are interested in those fields. I know a lot kids doing religious studies (God knows why!) or English or Anthropology or Music. There are also a lot of students who really want to be teachers- regardless of that careers low pay.

So money is driving some students, but not all.

I'd be willing to guess that most students are a bit bored with college or don't have the mentality for it. Part of a teacher's philosophy on teaching should be to inspire that. Again, I think I am lucky having good students.

Fashion- A couple years back I didn't have enough sections to teach an over crowded International Law Course, but down the hall Slavic Languages had extra sections for a course on Vampires (part of their 'folktale' area).

OK, Kharn- No I am not going into the good-bad culture thing. There has been some argument that to be successful, sometimes you need a strong dictator to get economic growth going because democracy is too unstable for the difficulties of economic development. That argument was used to justify Pinochet in Chile, the Brazilian military's role in Brazil during the 1980s, and elsewhere.

To a certain extent they are right. Pinochet might have been a ripe bastard, but he did get the Chilean economy going. Even in Ghana, Rawling's reorganization of politics helps move that country down a path of democratization and economic revitalization- and its doubtful if he could have pulled it off had he democratized too early.

The point being, often you have to figure out what pre-conditions either favor or disfavor democratization at a particular point.

As stated earlier, if you democratize with a highly politicized and divided ethnicity (that is also heavily armed) then you have a risk of great violence within a society that might have been avoided had there been a strong dictator. The only problem then is how do you get that dictator out.

One reason why, in the long term, democracy beats out dictatorship.

 

[Sander]

I have to admit that this is a real interesting thread, it is constantly changing and evolving.

College systems: What is wrong with the current college systems here, kharn? I'd like to know, since I have no clue(I have to admit I think the forced leaving if you don't make the first year is pretty silly. If I just have a bad year and JUST don't make it, I won't be able to do that study for another three years!). Also, I doubt it's really a thing of good education versus bad education, it is probably more or less culture. While things being taught usually don't differ much, the attitude towards teaching(and learning) may.

As for choices of study, I have to admit that I find history, politicology and philosphy very interesting subjects, I also have to admit that I think it's mainly a waste of time to study it(And welsh also pointed that out to me), because most things you learn there are things you can learn yourself, and there are almost no job opportunities for it(Besides teaching...). I am also attracted to Computer Science, and that is a much more useful study, mainly because job opportunities are better(And that is all you'd really need the study for, because I'm fairly confident it's very possible to learn it all on yourself. ), so that is most likely the way I'll be going in a year.

One thing you may be ignoring here, which I find very interesting, is the ability to learn using the internet, I KNOW that it is very possible. I've learnt a lot about diverse subjects via this medium, most of my programming skills come from the internet, knowledge about certain parts of history as well, and facts and opinions about many objects of debate-as well as an ever-improving skill with english and the ability to debate is evolving due to this medium(And then mainly forums like these).

 

[welsh]

Actually Sander, that point about the internet is interesting.

Globalization means more just economic interactions, but the ease to develope a whole range of associations that are not necessarily defined by state or geography.

If for instance, people become more keen to define themselves by who they are and what they do, than what happens to historical ideas of society. For example, an intellectual or business person in Peru might have more in common with another intellectual or business person in Europe, than with the poor slob living down the street who is living as a squatter in some vacant house.

If people construct new forms of society than the notion that we have of nationalism or even state-society relationships begins to become suspect.

 

[Sander]

I think the internet is probably one of the most revolutionary inventions ever, if we let it roll the way it is going right now, it'll alter the way the world is working, and hopefully in a good way.

And the fact that you make contact with other people is very cool, I have a very large variety of natinonalities I talk to regularly(Ranging from Peru, to Sweden, to the USA to Canada, Belgium, the UK, the Netherlands and many many other countries).

It even went that far that a Swedish guy went over here, who both me and a friend of mine got to know via the 'net, and we also contacted an internet friend from the other side of the country to meet him as well. Things are really interesting that way...

 

[welsh]

I think this is one of the good things to come out of globalization, and it works in a variety of ways. But this is a consequence of economics too. The internet would not work as well if it wasn't cheap to communicate. The fact that you and I can communicate is really just costing us the time to write, and maybe having a telephone or dsl line. Cheap.

Susan Strange (what a name- sounds like a punk rocker) has written extensively that we are seeing the decline of states as new forms of interaction and sources of power take over. There is also a theory called epistemic community in which experts of specialized fields begin to build social communities of like minded and similar moral views. Because these experts are consulted on for policy advice, their ideas shape politics. This is very popular among the Environmental field (the UNEP is often seen as a central part of that epistemic community).

However, you could also find that in law, accounting, medicine and the sciences. As the density of their interactions grow, so does the strength of the community (but also can be the divisions within that community- creation of social and political orders are usually contested processes not just between those orders and others, but for domination within that order).

I am sure Briosafreak can correct me on this, but I think its Peter Haas who got this going on environmental policy making.

 

[Brother None]

As stated earlier, if you democratize with a highly politicized and divided ethnicity (that is also heavily armed) then you have a risk of great violence within a society that might have been avoided had there been a strong dictator. The only problem then is how do you get that dictator out.

I think you missed my point.

Napoleon wanted to civilize the Russians. The colonial powers wanted to do the same for the barbarians. The Greeks forced democracy on other countries ("hoi barbaroi"). Why? Because they thought it was the right thing to do.

Do we agree these days? Hardly.

It can turn into a blind rampage too quickly. "Look at the state of living of these people, it's terrible! Let's democratise them!" and before you know it, you've got civil wars, famine, catastrophies, etc. etc.

Again, the worst effects oftimes comes from the best intentions. The problem is that the UN and the US currently show way too little afterthought to their actions. Democratising a country is a good thing. However, so was "civilizing" a country, which was what Napoleon intended. Did this justify his actions? No. Does it justify ours? No.

Seriously, the international community currently shows way too little thought in their actions. You can't just democratize a country and expect that to solve everything. If it were that easy, we'd all be happy...

What is wrong with the current college systems here, kharn?

It sucks. It's deliviring under-educated students, it's that simple.

However, let's not forget one thing; the bosses of the university do this every year. "Our colleges stink, we need more money!" So the problem's not as big as that.

But there's something else going on this time. The Dutch universities want to copy the American system of specialisation. One University would focus on Law, one on Science, etc. etc. While currently, you can follow most studies in all universities (though Delft is better for Science, Amsterdam for History, Rotterdam for Law, etc. etc.)

Just read the papers, dude.

And I don't like the Bachelor-Master system

 

[welsh]

I think you missed my point.

Napoleon wanted to civilize the Russians. The colonial powers wanted to do the same for the barbarians. The Greeks forced democracy on other countries ("hoi barbaroi"). Why? Because they thought it was the right thing to do.

Do we agree these days? Hardly.?

Kharn as much as I'd like to agree with you, I can't here. If you look at the policies of great powers since the Second World War, the US tends to favor creating democracies, the Soviets favored Soviet styled communist systems, the Chinese favored theirs.

There were some exceptions- the US supported way to many dictators- I think in the idea that it was easier to control a dictator than a communist regime- dictators die, communist regimes survive. Jean Kirkpatrick wrote something about this.

In a sense this is what Randy Sweller, a prominent thinker in IR, called big alligators making baby alligators.

Part of it is that it's easier to control something you know. I think another part of this is, that you know how to build that which you are, not what you aren't.

It can turn into a blind rampage too quickly. "Look at the state of living of these people, it's terrible! Let's democratise them!" and before you know it, you've got civil wars, famine, catastrophies, etc. etc.

Again, the worst effects oftimes comes from the best intentions. The problem is that the UN and the US currently show way too little afterthought to their actions. Democratising a country is a good thing. However, so was "civilizing" a country, which was what Napoleon intended. Did this justify his actions? No. Does it justify ours? No.

Seriously, the international community currently shows way too little thought in their actions. You can't just democratize a country and expect that to solve everything. If it were that easy, we'd all be happy...

I agree with a lot of this- that the international community trusts too much in the idea of democracy without really understanding why it works. Currently I am in a camp that is against the prevailing World Bank view on some of these issues. Before you can expect a system to work, you sure better understand how it works and how it will fit that locality.

But, also here's a problem. The UN is not really an autonomous actor, but a creature shaped by different political influences. So since those influences favor democracy, that's what they do. You really couldn't expect the US supporting the creation of yet another communist dictatorship?

THen there is the third problem. While we can sit back and muddle over these issues as back street drivers, the UN is actually in it. They have to come with something. Democracy might not be the best in some situations, but its better than nothing.

Much of the prevailing opinion on internal war, state weakness, runs- from the international organization view, on a notion of "good governance". But what makes good governance is often hard to figure out.

Briosafreak, would like to hear your thoughts on this.

What is wrong with the current college systems here, kharn?[/qote]

But there's something else going on this time. The Dutch universities want to copy the American system of specialisation. One University would focus on Law, one on Science, etc. etc. While currently, you can follow most studies in all universities (though Delft is better for Science, Amsterdam for History, Rotterdam for Law, etc. etc.)

Just read the papers, dude.

And I don't like the Bachelor-Master system

Well, from the US system view. THe problem with undergraduate education in the US is that its often underspecialized. Many curriculems try to give all students a good taste of other fields. So engineering students can sample Art history, Bio-Chem can do politics. The idea is to create well rounded students.

Personally I thought the specialization of an advanced degree (law) was probably the best educational experience I had. Best college experience was going abroad to study, but law really got me into analytical and constructive thinking. THe rigor of llaw school was priceless. I know most of my peers, also graduates of undergrad educations, felt that law school was the first time they really got a lot out of education.

Graduate school has also forced me to be more analytical and discerning. But again, that's part of specialization.

This is another reason why I favor a harder more rigorous education than a more loose unstructured system. The rigor can force you to think in a systemic and analytical way. That is something most of our undergrads in the social sciences and humanities are not getting enough of.

 

[Brother None]

THen there is the third problem. While we can sit back and muddle over these issues as back street drivers, the UN is actually in it. They have to come with something. Democracy might not be the best in some situations, but its better than nothing.

I know, this is the reason I don't object fully to the democrisation of the world either, but I think we can agree that it should be handled better.

THe rigor of llaw school was priceless. I know most of my peers, also graduates of undergrad educations, felt that law school was the first time they really got a lot out of education.

Heh, I always enjoy saying this; Law is kind of the nerdy kid amongst universities in Holland. If you can think of no better subject or if you're kind of unintelligent or uncreative, you go do either Law, Economics or Management. All three are lucrative, but incredibly easy and stupid studies.

But that's just Holland...

"I went to the KUN (Catholic University Nijmegen)"

"What did you study?"

"Law"

"No, I said what did you study?"

This is another reason why I favor a harder more rigorous education than a more loose unstructured system. The rigor can force you to think in a systemic and analytical way. That is something most of our undergrads in the social sciences and humanities are not getting enough of.

That could be argued to be something inherent of those subjects and not a flaw in the method. Remember the Rationalists argued any subject could be dealth with in a systematic and analytical way, and look what became of them. They're DEAD!

But seriously, social sciences aren't the kind of things you can approach as systematically as Law or any of the Physical Sciences or Languages...That's just the way it is.