Printable View
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2008/11/526.jpg
Any idea why Japan is the only developed Asian country? (excluding special case Singapore)
Any idea how what started as convicts sent to Australia managed to produce a developed country in a couple of centuries?
Anglophile people and Europeans were and are more creative and adapt more than other peoples, IMO.
Why do they have to be "given" a load of money? Why can't they produce the wealth and developed infrastructure themselves? Who gave Australians a load of money to produce a developed country? It seems that they did it themselves (unless you are going to claim that they took most of it by plundering aboriginies!).Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkmadness
The below book may be controversial because people such as yourself are uncomfortable with the findings and set out to argue with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1] The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capitagross domestic product) correlate with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). The authors interpret this correlation as showing that IQ is one important factor contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth, but that it is not the only determinant of these differences
Spending an inordinate amount of time every day obsessed with comparisons and how you stack up with others is unhealthy. Being a Brit, it's even less advisable.
I suggest you accept some things as facts and just move on. :)
I only read the wikipedia page, not wrote the report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
But you are right. In doing that, maybe I'm becoming Thai :tantrum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeg
It was the friendly Empire of Brits Smeg, that's who
We plundered the mineral resources, but needed the infrastructure to do so, so built roads and railways etc. As time went by, and as the population was relatively low, the country became developed and wealthy; a lot of the money from the resources actually stayed in the country.
Unfortunately, it does not always work out successfully, as you can see in India
Observing this chart, I would consider the source. Then go from there....Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeg
This is a perfect Eurocentric indoctrination and how it might be applied throughout some social science circles, less the general ignorant populous. Remember my friend, everything you know - infrastructures of every nature - you owe to traditional and "non-western" cultures. And then over and above the broad Eurocentic generalities that our Smegley offers, one has to question as to what "development" might be......Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
Good for you Tex!!!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
Your a wonder Smeg:rofl:, You must have gone to the Max Weber School of Eurocentric Illusional Superiority Complex. And sure have bought the program hook, line, and sinker. Poor boy:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SmegWhy do they have to be "given" a load of money? Why can't they produce the wealth and developed infrastructure themselves? Who gave Australians a load of money to produce a developed country? It seems that they did it themselves (unless you are going to claim that they took most of it by plundering aboriginies!).Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkmadness
The below book may be controversial because people such as yourself are uncomfortable with the findings and set out to argue with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1] The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capitagross domestic product) correlate with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). The authors interpret this correlation as showing that IQ is one important factor contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth, but that it is not the only determinant of these differences
The references above about such exceedingly growth and development {from an historic Western perspective} of Australia came at the expense of the generational genocide of the native populations. Very interestingly mirrored, historically, by their predominately Anglo-cultured cousins across the Pacific whom found it similiarly necessary to grossly exterminate a race of people to advance themselves.
I disagree. I think these two concepts are not discussed much nor written about in the Western education systems (at least in the US).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rural SurinThis is a perfect Eurocentric indoctrinationQuote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
1. Creativity
2. Adaptability
Many, many, Asian I know and have worked with have told me about the differences on these two above, between the West and East Asia.
I don't like the term "developed."Quote:
And then over and above the broad Eurocentic generalities that our Smegley offers, one has to question as to what "development" might be......
It implies that the "development" of certain societies is better than others, IMO.
"Development" has led to the harm of the Earth's environment, and people
Read the book "Guns, Germs and Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years " by Jared Diamond. He pretty much nails it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeg
Quote:
Amazon.co.uk Review
Life isn't fair--here's why: Since 1500, Europeans have, for better and worse, called the tune that the world has danced to. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond explains the reasons why things worked out that way. It is an elemental question, and Diamond is certainly not the first to ask it. However, he performs a singular service by relying on scientific fact rather than specious theories of European genetic superiority. Diamond, a professor of physiology at UCLA, suggests that the geography of Eurasia was best suited to farming, the domestication of animals and the free flow of information. The more populous cultures that developed as a result had more complex forms of government and communication--and increased resistance to disease. Finally, fragmented Europe harnessed the power of competitive innovation in ways that China did not. (For example, the Europeans used the Chinese invention of gunpowder to create guns and subjugate the New World.) Diamond's book is complex and a bit overwhelming. But the thesis he methodically puts forth--examining the "positive feedback loop" of farming, then domestication, then population density, then innovation, and on and on--makes sense. Written without bias, Guns, Germs, and Steel is good global history.
Incorrect. Jared Diamond only "nails it" through a extremely selective and narrow perspective. In some circles, Mr. Diamond is considered a charlatan. An open visionary objective historian in indoctrinationed circles. A wolf in sheep's clothing. If you consider this hefty edition as "good global" history, you need to redonsider your real world history and world history systems.
^RS, by what criteria do you compare/contrast Western and Eastern civilization?
He won the 1998 Pulitzer Price (and others) for that book, and the following year received the National Medal of Science. He also has several PhDs and a long list of awards and honours from some rather respectable institutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rural Surin
So if he is a charlatan, he is certainly a good one.:rolleyes:
I watched the TV program. Interesting and made sense to me. If you wanted to you could analyse the world's history down to the finest detail and come up with a myriad of reasons why some parts of the world are more developed than others. But for and overall 'Big Picture' I reckon he did a good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteshiva
You missed South Korea in the list. It sticks out black too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeg
What I do find odd though, is North Korea ranking higher than China. Do they get extra points as a nuclear power?
Take away caucasians (and the ancient Chinese) from human evolution... what would the world have without them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeg
Academia?
DNA research?
Theory of reletivity?
747s transporting people 1000's of miles in a few hours?
etc etc.
You forgot South Korea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeg
In another 30 years, check in on Vietnam and China again. Possibly Malaysia and Thailand too although it's a bit early to say.
Australia? It wasn't as if most of them were axe murderers, secondly they brought with them an administration and culture from a developed country, as well as maintained close ties to one of the strongest economies and powers at the time.
When Japan was opened by Western 'cannon diplomacy' in the mid 1800s it was already a well organised society with a strong sense of duty and accountability. Historically, their proximity to and elite cultural exchange with China and later the strictly controlled acquiring of knowledge from the Dutch as well as their militaristic traditions and focus on physical and mental discipline meant they already were in a good position to modernise once their self-elected isolation was broken.
After WW2 when conquered by the Yanks, their realisation of defeat combined with their discipline and (forced) close access to the world's strongest economy quickly brought them to the forefront.
Probably bad terminology on my part, better to say 'If they had a load of money'. Wasn't suggesting they take a handout.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmegWhy do they have to be "given" a load of money? Why can't they produce the wealth and developed infrastructure themselves? Who gave Australians a load of money to produce a developed country? It seems that they did it themselves (unless you are going to claim that they took most of it by plundering aboriginies!).Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkmadness
Many reasons why some countries are not at the same development stages at others, environmental factors, political factors and many other variables all take part in it.
They get brownie points for sucking up to Uncle Sugar:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
So does anyone feel embarrassed that caucasians had more get up and go and were more technologically advanced? I'm quite sure that SE Asians would have tried to colonise and rape the world if they were up to it. As it was, the most they could do was pop over the border and plunder the nearest city.
A surprising comment from you. I think tex was simply suggesting that what I'm saying is obvious ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rural SurinGood for you Tex!!!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
https://teakdoor.com/images/td_defaul...tation_pos.gifHuman development17-11-2008 11:03 AMRural SurinA BIG RED FOR YOUR IGNORANCE
Bwahaha
Easy to speculate on historiographical content, isn't it Professor? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeg
How do you figuire this? Perhaps you would like to elaborate (if you can).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rural Surin
If by "caucasians" you mean Europeans, I don;t think that is anything to be ashamed of or embarrased about. It was purely a lucky combination of factors over which we had very little influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeg
For example, if the African native plants and animals were as easy to domesticate as Eurasian ones, Europe would probably have have been overrun by Africans, mounted on Rhinoceroses.
Think the Chinese can be thanked for developing many of the things we "westerners" take credit for.Quote:
Originally Posted by cujo
computersmiths' History of Chinese Invention and Discovery
Kudos Norton, you'll never win "them" over.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
I think wide spread governmental corruption is a major cause in the lack of development of many countries. Thailand included, along with most of South America and Africa. China hasn't cleaned up it's act and will probably take a harder hit from the recession than a lot of other countries.