What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

all i can say is...............WOW.........

  • #42
Now I like bologna with some horseradish and swiss cheese on toasted sourdough.

God I sound like an old woman. Kill me now.
 
  • #43
instead of six degrees of Kevin Bacon, we have six degrees of Ham or Bacon :crazy:

Av

edit: six degrees, not seven ways.... :blush: :0o:
 
  • #44
does wild boar count as ham?
 
  • #45
....yes.
 
  • #46
Western countrys still activly retard the advancement of many iddle Eastern countries

Well i dont know about any other feild, but in science and advancements in technology they do it to themselves. In contrast to the shining history of acheivemnts and the strives they made ho help spurn the science revlution, the past few hundered years have been rather sad

To usher science and technology more thoroughly into Arab culture and society, however, the West needs to acknowledge the Arab world's historical contributions, and the Arab world needs to stop dwelling on its golden past by also embracing lessons about science and technology that the West learned long ago.

"Currently, the scientific output of Arabs is disproportionate to their human and economic capacities. Taking biomedical research as an example, Arab countries currently produce less than 1% of citations in the world and contribute less than 0.5% of papers appearing in the 200 leading medical journals. Annual spending on research and development in Arab countries is estimated at 0.15% of their gross domestic product (GDP), compared to a world average of 1.4%. Lack of funding, poor institutional support, and meager integration within the international scientific community are among the many reasons that analysts have cited to explain the current status of science in Arab states. More general factors, such as wars, conflicts, and international political and economic sanctions, also have been implicated"

Most of the reserch funding is directed at wepons development. There is almost no funding for material or natural sciences. This cannot be blamed on the West for the countrie's meager reserch funds.
Rich Arabs believed that oil money plus Western technology was a simple formula for industrialization and modernization. Thus, acquiring the latest technological products or shares in hi-tech industries became synonymous with being partners in the technological revolution of the modern world. After all, most Arabs view science as a commodity that can be separated from the thought processes and sociocultural attributes of its producers. This perspective makes it hard to appreciate the differences in culture and values between technology-producing and technology-consuming societies.

....the arrival of innovations brings with it, directly or indirectly, the lifestyle and sociocultural values of their innovators. Wealth, it seems, is powerless against the culture of those who create and own the technology.

...has been to view the West's interest in science as an improper indulgence in material trivialities. For decades, these changes were proliferating and festering under the surface, creating an atmosphere inimical to science and one effectively closed to the possibility of learning from the Western experience.
Science was caught in the cross-fire. Subconsciously for many Arabs, modern science's ties to the West, to rationalism, and to natural materialism gave it the flavor of enmity. And because science cannot be practiced nowadays without close collaboration with Western academic institutions, research has become, in the minds of many Arabs, a suspicious activity and yet another potential gateway for Western incursion.
 
  • #47
So if a culture does not put a great emphasis on science and instead emphasis on spirituality and their fate in the afterlife that makes them backwards? What makes a belief in science superior to an emphasis on spirituality. Just because science is more important in your life doesnt mean it should be in everyones life.
The fact that they spend a large portion of their incomes on weapons development is a direct result of colonialism and the mandate period where the western nations created artificial borders grouping people who do not get along and set up weak puppet governments who collapsed and were disposed by dictators. The country's like Iran(who's people are Persians, not Arab but was mentioned earlier in the post) who did develop democracy had them disposed by US back revolutions. Dictators and religious regimes are not known for allowing the most freedom of thought and kindness to new scientific discoveries. On top of this the western nations (especially the US and Britain) placed Israel into the middle east and then gave them large quantities of advanced weapons driving an arms race in the middle east. The west also backs Israel in their aggressive expansionist actions forcing Israel's neighbors to have large militarizes and try to close the technology gap through weapons development spending.
Finch what source did you use for your information? Also I would like to see the science spending of other former colonial countries freed around WWII vs. the middle east. I imagine they would not be fairly similar. I have a feeling that much of the rejection of western science is a result of the governments that control the countries. If you examine countries like Jordan they are very western and are scientifically and medically advanced as well as granting many freedoms to its citizens. Now if you look at a country like Saudi Arabia they are probably the most oppressed and least scientifically advanced. In both situations the government in control is the major factor controlling these differences, with Jordan's rulers encouraging advancement (especially king Hussein) and Saudi Arabia has had rulers who oppressed their own people, especially the current king, King Abdullah, who maintains his power for the most part through US backing. So argueing that the west has not help to keep the middle east form advancing is a bad argument and in many ways blames the victim.
 
  • #48
Um... this story makes it sound like the ham sandwich raped someone.

Seriously, what the!? OMG, this is bogus.
 
  • #49
"Colonialism" runs on both sides, the Ottoman empire lasted for centuries (until the end of WW1) . Following the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman Empire entered a long period of conquest and expansion, extending its borders deep into Europe and North Africa

Primarily it was the technological advancements in British shipping and industry that put into check this aggressiveness during the 17th and 18th centuries, motivated in part due to it's own survival

In fact during WW1 the Ottoman Empire dealt a major blow to the "Commonwealth" nations at Gallipoli, a battle which is near and dear to the hearts of all ANZACs to this day

( I have an original 1916 1st edition copy of the "ANZAC Book" written by the Australian/NZ soldiers while in the trenches at Gallipoli, sorry... just proud of it, a very prized possession LOL)

the sins of man know no borders, no one religion...every culture is just as guilty at some point in its history

Av
 
  • #50
So if a culture does not put a great emphasis on science and instead emphasis on spirituality and their fate in the afterlife that makes them backwards?


Who said that> i never even said that they were less advanced. I never said that. Dont put words in my mouth


What makes a belief in science superior to an emphasis on spirituality. Just because science is more important in your life doesnt mean it should be in everyones life.


I am spiritual too. I never said that either. People choose their own way thats fine.

Its one of my pet peeves when people put words in my mouth that i never said. Please, stop.

ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY was that the west is not keeping the Arab culture down in science. Secondly, yes Jordan is very relatively advanced in the sciences

The fact that they spend a large portion of their incomes on weapons development
Did you look at the statistics i gave? They spend a vanishingly small portion of their incomes on any form of research, weapons or otherwise.... now militarization, is another story. The west is partially responcible for the militarization and arms race, but not for wepon reserch funding.

Saudi Arabia isnt the only country out there doing this. So is Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and many countries not directly supported by the US do the same thing. The

Most Arab societies, not just Saudi Arabia, are run by dictatorships that practice different levels of censorship on their citizens.

It is the Middle Eastern governments fault. The US has meddled directly in several ME countries, but not be a long shot all of them so directly. If the US stops backing Saudi Arabia right now, they are strong enough to keep control without our governments support.

Most higher scientific institutions in Arab countries are run by governments, which, in undemocratic systems, means that their goals actually are more political than scientific. This mode of governance reflects unfavorably on many aspects of academic life, rendering scientific merit and research of little importance for career advancement and precluding any genuine evaluation of the scientific performance of these institutions. Lack of high-quality research by faculty members, in turn, limits training opportunities for students and hinders the development of the very organizational structures that would support the growth of research capacity. This has turned most Arab universities merely into centers for knowledge dissemination, not for questioning, criticism, and an authentic search for new knowledge.

? Also I would like to see the science spending of other former colonial countries freed around WWII vs. the middle east. I imagine they would not be fairly similar

I fear that no such list exists, however, there is no reason why they should still be giving substandard funding. Especially the middle east, with its wealth. India is a country that was released arond WWII and its spending is at or above what western nations spend..

The sources of the statistics i gave are

Al-Khader, Saudi Med. J. 25, 1323 (2004).
Massod, Nature 416, 120 (2002).
O. Tadmouri, N. Bissar-Tadmouri, Lancet 362, 1766 (2003).
 
  • #51
Finch I was not implying you said any of that. Infact the only part of my post which pertains directly to you has your name infront of it. It bothers me when people assume everything stated is directed at them. There are other people in this conversation so dont assume everything is directed at you.

Also your stats on research appear to only the biomedical field not weapons research or any other field unless I am reading them wrong. Saudi Arabia was only used as an example of one of the countries that has these problems, not as the only one. Also their government is very unpopular with the people and would face some serious challenges if the US gov't pulled their support. (Pakistan is also not middle eastern nor Arab, so they are likely not included in your stats, just as Iran may not be as they are Persian)

As for India it did not suffer under inept rulers apointed by the western powers during the mandate period so its a poor example. Now if you look at Africa it has many of the same conditions after WWII. Inept rulers appointed by western powers, artificial borders drawn up by the west, lack of development under colonialism, ect.

Av- The Ottoman empire was not ruled by Arabs nor Middle Easterns but was controlled by Turks (Seljuks) from central Asia not the middle east. Also the effects of Ottoman colonialism did not have as great an effect on the Middle East as did western colonalism. I am not arguing that one country was a better colonial occupier but only that western colonalism has had a very negative effect on the Middle East.

One last thing, people keep using Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern interchangably which they are not. Please try to use the correct word to describe the people or region you are refering to.
 
  • #52
...Now if you look at Africa it has many of the same conditions after WWII. Inept rulers appointed by western powers, artificial borders drawn up by the west, lack of development under colonialism, ect.

Av- The Ottoman empire was not ruled by Arabs nor Middle Easterns but was controlled by Turks (Seljuks) from central Asia not the middle east. Also the effects of Ottoman colonialism did not have as great an effect on the Middle East as did western colonalism. I am not arguing that one country was a better colonial occupier but only that western colonalism has had a very negative effect on the Middle East.

One last thing, people keep using Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern interchangably which they are not. Please try to use the correct word to describe the people or region you are refering to.

Ktulu, if it had not been for those western powers during WWII I believe most of Africa and the Middle East, if not the world would have been ruled by Adolf Hitler..

and I never said the Ottoman Empire was Arab or anything else for that matter, toady the region is a result of that colonialism and it's effects, now if we could go back and ask someone who lived prior to these events how they viewed the changes to that region resulting from the Ottoman Empire and Islam I am sure they would say the same thing you are saying now about western colonialism..

there is no pure culture, we are all results of colonialism and its effects, history is always written by the victorious,

map of the ottoman empire...
637px-OttomanEmpireIn1683.png
 
  • #53
So if a culture does not put a great emphasis on science and instead emphasis on spirituality and their fate in the afterlife that makes them backwards? What makes a belief in science superior to an emphasis on spirituality. Just because science is more important in your life doesnt mean it should be in everyones life.

Since i was the one who brought up science, i assumed it was directed a me... it was not an unreasonable conclusion. Others simply said more "advanced" whatever that means
The emergence of a Saudi state began in central Arabia in 1744. A regional ruler, Muhammad bin Saud, joined forces with a cleric, Muhammad Abd Al-Wahhab, to create a new political entity. This alliance formed in the 18th Century remains the basis of Saudi Arabian dynastic rule today. Over the next 150 years, the fortunes of the Saud family rose and fell several times as Saudi rulers contended with Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and other Arabian families for control on the peninsula. The Saudi state was founded by the late King Abdul Aziz Al-Saud (known internationally as Abdul Aziz bin Saud).


The west did not appoint any of the original rulers of saudia arabia nor have they ever been appinted by the west. The dynastic rule of saudia arabia did not originate nor was it appointed by western powers so it is not fair to blame the west for their ruler's shortcomings in the funding departement

As for funding, the
annual spending on research and development in Arab countries is estimated at 0.15% of their gross domestic product (GDP)
involves all forms of reserch, not just medical.
 
  • #55
AV- again I am not arguing one colonial occupier is better than another. I am saying that the effects of the Ottoman empire on the modern condition of the Middle East is not nearly as important as the powers of Western Europe as colonial occupiers. In fact I see little relevance in bring up the Ottoman empire in this discussion. Yes they were in the region but so were the Romans, the Mongols, etc, and they were not mentioned.

Finch- I still don't see how you could assume that was directed at you when a few lines latter I specifically name you. As for the Saudi ruling family the west propped them up and even gave them control of Mecca and Medina after WWI thereby legitimizing their rule when they could just as easily have thrown them out. plus many of my comments about them are from more recent times. I am more familiar with their current administration and its unpopularity with Saudi people. The current power structure in that country in my opinion exists only because the West continues to support it.

Lauderdale- My signature would translate along the lines of "Liberate Palestine". I support a free and independent Palestinian state, though this would be a whole new subject I dont want to dive into in this post as its way off topic.
 
  • #56
I JUST finished American history and if there's anything that gave me a headache it's the conflict between the PLO and the Isreali's lol. Isreal has no right no exist, they stole their country from the Palistinians. It's BS and no one in their right mind can support that sort of theft.
 
  • #57
With all due respect, Jlap.

The Israelites lived in Israel way before the Palestinians "claimed" it. The Israelites have been driven out of their country several times. They've given part of their land to the Palestinians just to appease them and that's still not enough.

When the British arrived in the US, they stole the land of the American Indians. The British claimed the Indian's land and drove them to the South. Many years later, the US stole Texas from the Spanish colony. Since we stole this country from it's original inhabitants, do we not deserve to be here?
 
  • #58
With all due respect, Jlap.

The Israelites lived in Israel way before the Palestinians "claimed" it. The Israelites have been driven out of their country several times. They've given part of their land to the Palestinians just to appease them and that's still not enough.

When the British arrived in the US, they stole the land of the American Indians. The British claimed the Indian's land and drove them to the South. Many years later, the US stole Texas from the Spanish colony. Since we stole this country from it's original inhabitants, do we not deserve to be here?

the rule has been since we were in caves......................those that can keep ahold of the land get to live there be it by force or by treaty..................
 
  • #59
Firs off, I saw a ham icon on that guy's show who hates illegal aliens... whatshisname. Maybe this is real.

Second off, you call them Isrealites instead of the modern word of Isreali. This implies a religious interest. Not saying you have one or not, but it implies it.

And as far as native americans, if the few hundred pure NA's would speak up I'd listen :) I myself am a little NA.

Oh and we won texas and I think there was a treaty, and I don't believe we forced them to get out of texas (although I could be wrong).
 
  • #60
And as far as native americans, if the few hundred pure NA's would speak up I'd listen

i invite you to come up and listen to one of the local tribal board meetings :grin:
 
Back
Top