Why is West dominator of the world?

i know i know….just made me wonder that all the time when we threw some pretty nasty dirt on each others, no moderators came to intervene, but when we talked polite matters with positive things, then mods suddenly jumps in….makes me wonder what sort of the moderation policy is practised in here?
But i’m not the place to judge and critizising your work, so pardon me if i’ve been coasing trouple…

Yes, it’s wonderful that you and Chinawhite can talk to each other these days.

It still isn’t a chatroom. 😀

GA

Ofcourse….like the three word storyes and what music had you been listening, this is place for extremely serious discussion 😉
But isen’t it nice that for once I and Chinawhite can talk without being on each other throats, wouldn’t it be profitable to the whole forum to encouraging this kind of peacetalk of former flamers?

Private conversations about our schools and what we want to be when we grow up are best carried out by means of Private Messages, chaps. 😀

This ain’t no chatroom. :diablo:

GA

I’m not sure how Europe was a dominant force in the world throughout the time..After Roman Empire there were plenty of strong strong empires from the East…Caliphate, Turks, Mongol, Mughal… but out of all these I feel Ottoman Empire was the greatest threat to Europe…the fall of vienna would have caused so much changes in the world today dont you think…

but eventually yes, Europe did became the dominant force

didint you speak english in there :confused: :confused:

Aussie slang. You have to live here to understand it. complex stuff

just said im from here and there was no indentity.

lack of that identity isent always a bad choice…if you can drew up an theory that identity leads to nationalism and nationalism usually into violence of some sort…

A good fact is a lot of australian words are really derived from chinese words

didint you speak english in there :confused: :confused:

But when the talk was about cultures, a date more closer to the arrival of that culuture migth be impropriate one…and actual creating one sort of state isent exactly the same as forming the civilications.

Im more thinking alone the lines of creating a country and then having someting to say like “im australia” while before the creatin of australia people just said im from here and there was no indentity.

So after australia was created as a country in the legal sense people could then create a identity around that. eg White australia policy where there was a melting pot of the original cultures inot one culture

if it isent about revailing some previosly unknow theory how australian culture and civilications arent exported but some miracluosly the aborginals

Nothing like that 😀

More like the non-european races and the districts they live ad created. from the start of the real immigration post-1830 to 1900

A good fact is a lot of australian words are really derived from chinese words

Im just asking since most people assume that australia was a country in 1788 but it was not. Australia had many changes and the country we know as australia was formed in 1901. Before that they were just colonies(thats why there was so much immigration at the start) and basically different countries

Because of that all the states have different types of cultures.

You go to queensland and you have rugby and a mixture of local brews and imported things(they drink more fancy).In NSW you have rugby and cricket and tooheys (type of beer). Victoria you have the AFL and Victoria bitter(type of beer) .And south australia where its AFL and carlton draught(type of beer)

In different regions of australia there is as much difference as some european countries in what they do. But after 1901 we were held together by a sense of partiotism and a sole identiy of being australian.

But also if you look inot concentrations of (lets just say ethnic) groups you will find they are concentrated in the east and mainly south east while on the west coast a very very unique culture developed.

But when the talk was about cultures, a date more closer to the arrival of that culuture migth be impropriate one…and actual creating one sort of state isent exactly the same as forming the civilications.

And im sure there is as many varietyes in australia as there is inside many european nations as well, but the culuture, when speaking in global levels is visible under these variations, as its by its contiunity represent the civilacation itself. And europe (western) and Australia shares that same contiunity

I might make a reply for australian culture on the holidays. I was definate before but now im not to sure if i will have enough time

if it isent about revailing some previosly unknow theory how australian culture and civilications arent exported but some miracluosly the aborginals have transformed via speeded up evolution to full fletch european-lookalikes and build the civilication by themself, Dont bother to waste your and my time on that. I propaply dont have any different wievs from your culture that you couldnt blame me, only difference seems to be the orgins of the civilication, not the cultural contest of it.

Im just asking since most people assume that australia was a country in 1788 but it was not. Australia had many changes and the country we know as australia was formed in 1901. Before that they were just colonies(thats why there was so much immigration at the start) and basically different countries

Because of that all the states have different types of cultures.

You go to queensland and you have rugby and a mixture of local brews and imported things(they drink more fancy).In NSW you have rugby and cricket and tooheys (type of beer). Victoria you have the AFL and Victoria bitter(type of beer) .And south australia where its AFL and carlton draught(type of beer)

In different regions of australia there is as much difference as some european countries in what they do. But after 1901 we were held together by a sense of partiotism and a sole identiy of being australian.

But also if you look inot concentrations of (lets just say ethnic) groups you will find they are concentrated in the east and mainly south east while on the west coast a very very unique culture developed.

???

what?? Ok I admitt, bit overexaggerated expression (and more of generalisation as i werent talking about australia along, but other western countryes as well), but you propaply get my point…

…it some hyppocritical excuse for facist immigration policy.

????????

Thats part of it. But when you have some individuals from a particular ethnic group, however few in number, questioning whether they are subject to the laws of the country they live in, it prompts a debate….

yeas it does but my point is that unlike you tryed to say, immagration rising from the individual motivates cannot be seperated from other immigration movements and therefore make it some hyppocritical excuse for facist immigration policy. laws are mere tools of ruling factors own agendas and justificates only their status to the power so to an old anarchist like me, the lawfactor doesent bite

Wheter they ‘lose’ themself in the mist of the new culture or replace it, isent directly relevant to the nature of the immigration itself but the livelyness of the destinative culture.

Thats part of it. But when you have some individuals from a particular ethnic group, however few in number, questioning whether they are subject to the laws of the country they live in, it prompts a debate….

The debate about multiculturalism is not about immigration. It about whether new arrivals should actively seek to retain the culture and life style of their “old country” rather than actively embracing the culture and lifestyle of modern Australia.

Similarly, reporting of Australia immigration policies, in particular the detention of illegal entrants seem like outright misrepresentation at times. Whether you agree with them or not (which is another issue in itself), only illegal entrants who refuse to leave are placed in detention until their status can be determined. In that respect its not that much different to the situation in a lot of European countries or the US and Canada. But whatching Eurpean TV, it sounds like all arrivals are detained, and that Australia has a strongly anti immigration policy. In realty, immigration levels are at historically high levels, and 25% of the Australian population was born overseas.

well you confuse the issue there yourself. In largescale statistics, you cannot descripe immigrant to some other class from merely his motives. The human race is on constant movement, wheter in bigger populations or in smaller scales. Wheter they ‘lose’ themself in the mist of the new culture or replace it, isent directly relevant to the nature of the immigration itself but the livelyness of the destinative culture.

To that, you australian should remember that big human migrations are historical inevitables and cannot be keep bay for long by mere political decission. No nation can eternally prevent it, wheter letting your own people out or letting new ones to came in
For other parts of your proplem, my stance is that (thougth im not keen supporter of any all-encompassing ethics or morale in general)
Whats the logic of isolation and anti-immigration in country thats born by immigration and carryes a dark burden of this in its past?

One point that has always intrigued me is how inaccurately reported, or misreported, Australian issues are in European media.

The debate about multiculturalism is not about immigration. It about whether new arrivals should actively seek to retain the culture and life style of their “old country” rather than actively embracing the culture and lifestyle of modern Australia.

Similarly, reporting of Australia immigration policies, in particular the detention of illegal entrants seem like outright misrepresentation at times. Whether you agree with them or not (which is another issue in itself), only illegal entrants who refuse to leave are placed in detention until their status can be determined. In that respect its not that much different to the situation in a lot of European countries or the US and Canada. But whatching Eurpean TV, it sounds like all arrivals are detained, and that Australia has a strongly anti immigration policy. In realty, immigration levels are at historically high levels, and 25% of the Australian population was born overseas.

Gollevainen,

When was australia formed in finnish books?

Musashi,

Im 16. Year 11

So what happened? Unlike the Europeans who were greedy and ambitious, the Chinese taught themselves as having already the best in the world and sees little need to colonize South East Asia and other parts of the world.

I know this is an old post, but excuse me? The Chinese didn’t have territorial aspirations, weren’t motivated by greed, etc? Well I guess that must account for the fact that China kept growing and growing and growing over the centuries. How many old kingdoms and states were swallowed up in this process? The borders of modern China are the result of imperalism. And one could probably say the same about Russia and the USA too.

The main reason Europe was such a driving force was the constant competition between the others. That drove them to set up colonies around the world, seek more international trade, etc. Whereas as burger said, the Asian states tended to not “look past the horizon”. Perhaps this was because there wasn’t that same kind of clash of nations in the region as there was in Europe.

Well you do what you got to do. I must say i’m bit dissapointed….but until we meet again, näkemiin 😉

After some thought i decided not to reply anymore. Enjoy your life

PS: If you want your questioned answered look at the immigration to australia. clue is the gold rush, banjo patterson, Ned kelly.