Asian History & Modern Society | Asian American Poll

ASIAN HISTORY & MODERN SOCIETY
(Updated Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:25:26 PM to reflect the 100 most recent valid responses.)

CONTACT US | ADVERTISING INFO

© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.

WHAT YOU SAY

[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]

"white girl,

straight to the point: if you are rich you will be able to influence the ethics of your environment.The problem I'm referring to is that values like homosexuality, anti-male feminism and lesbianism among others spread continually from the West to the East. In the times of Western patriarchy this was not yet the case.
rare stuff"

Oh boy here we go again with yet another stupid and arrogant comment from rare stuff. Why do you consider homosexuality and feminism to be "problems"? Also being gay is NOT UNIQUE to the Western world! People all over the world (and yes in Asia too) are gay. And there is nothing wrong with this. Or are you are gay-hater? You act as though the West is poisoning your pure East with our terrible gayness!
white girl Monday, April 29, 2002 at 07:31:56 (PDT)

Rare stuff--

Fair enough, I can't call you a fasist. However, I still would adamantly claim that some of your ideas are very dangerous for the betterment of mankind.

You said that you believe that Eastern spirituality could "balance out" western materialism. I still do not understand what you mean by eastern spirituality or western materialism. Are you trying to say that Materialism is essentially a Western concept?

You talk about cultural values being transmitted in terms of rich country to poorer--and that this being a problem. What is also true is that technological know how and other ideas also flow in as well. But cultural diffusion is a too way street.

I have no idea what you mean by reviving spirituality. Are you trying to say that anti-male feminism or lesbianism is the outcome of a morally bankrupt society?
ka Monday, April 29, 2002 at 07:15:59 (PDT)

ka,

I don't disagree that mail order brides are systematic of disparity in wealth of two countries. However, in asian culture this is an extension of the "arranged marriage" customs. It is modern mail order brides you see on the internet are rooted in this custom. Women in asia feel they are participating in modern arrange marriages so to say. I cannot comment in Russian and former Soviet Bloc counties who participate in mail order brides because I am unfamilar with their culture.

Perhaps the males in the USA feel they can exploit these asian women, which is the issue. In other words USA males who are not familiar with arrange marriage, enter these arrangements with preconceived notions. For I'm pretty sure women in asia who particpate in mail order bride service feel they are going into a mutual "arranged marriage". I'm pretty sure that the women are not being beaten to have their photo taken and pay the service fees.

I think I might be a little more experienced with how Fortune reads a personal finacial statement to determine wealth than you think. I don't think in the Saudi prince assest column is a line entry "Executive power to condone executions."

I remember the huge debate the year Gates came on top. Experts in the financial world were concern whether Soros or the Saudi Prince would be better traditional candidates, or Gates the dawn of the "new economy". My basic point was that do you wish to evaluate wealth bases on paper assests or commodity assests?

Without bringing in all the great minds of Europe who start the Utopian thinking.

Let's the term "free" equal an individual ability to exert self-determination, regardless of social consequence, which we will denote as X.

Let's the term "free society/government" mean one which guarantee self-determination of the individual, however, always putting social stability above all, which we will denote as Y.

Let's the term "rich" mean the abundant resources (assest defined by SEC standards).

To change any society in a non-violent or chaotic way requires "richness" of a nation to implement these changes. My point with your original post is whether or not a countries or individuals wishes to modernized/progress in the direction of morality you proposed (I'm assuming you were referring to American morality).
Because taking your argument of Free equal Rich. Can we utilized the theory to explain great empires of the past? China, Babylon, Roman, Turkish, England, Spain, Zulu, India, Aztec, Egypt, Isreal, etc. Please explain the rise and fall of nations with Free equal Rich. Did these past nation rise due to immorality? Did they fall due to immorality?

Only those who wish to move the masses with speak in terms of morality, or good and evil. Those with the grey matter between the ears or stuck in a ivory towers find these matter quite trival. They would rather propose and define social experiments call Fuedalism, Colonialism, Utopian, Democracy, Communist, Socialist, Capitalism, Globalization, and who know what other coined phrases lurk in the future.
AC dropout Sunday, April 28, 2002 at 18:07:00 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS