After reading many discussions and participating in a few, it seems like many debates come down to East versus West. This could pertain to most any issue on this site, whether it’s religion, politics, or economy.
My question then becomes about Ethnocentricity. Why is it that we allow a matter of borders or oceans to segregate one race or peoples from ourselves? After all, we were all created on this Earth as human beings first, then defined by our nationality second. However, we act differently, putting our nationality first. This is what creates our division.
So who is ‘right’ in the matter of how we live our lives? Western drive for success and power, Eastern drive for self-determination, an other category? Or is it that I’m seeing the world in a skewed manner?
Economic power shifts. We are talking economis here - the West seems to be striving, driven, stressed, seeking power, seeking status, wanting money, money, money, etc.
And the East (Asia) seems relaxed, laid back, etc.
Not true! The East (see China, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea) are also striving, driven, etc. The nice images of countryside, Zen gardens, temples, meditation are mere pictures. Nice to look at in the tourist brochures. And a nice way to get Westerners to come over and spend their money!
The fact that Vietnam does have as many cars as France does not mean that they do not want to acquire wealth and power.
I’m sure a Japanese looking at the holiday brochures will think the same of us: ah, look at all those cathedrals, those convents, those white peaks, those relaxing beaches!
And power shifts: 200 years ago, the USA were not an economic power, and Britain was. Look at them now.
I have to say, I do agree with some of your comments that you have risen. Wherever you go in this world (or at most places), it does appear that everyone is out for capital gain. I actually found another discussion elsewhere which pretty much asked what I was meaning to say in this post. Basically it was a question between capitalism and socialism. Frankly, I’m a advocate and a cynic towards both ideals at the same time. But that’s another issue.
The part that I had trouble with in your statements:
I’m not sure if I would agree. I mean, when North America was first claimed by British power, it wasn’t “to explore the world” as our history has hyped up the matter to be. It was to find resources and workers. This was found in these lands by the early settlers. The very foundation of these lands was based on creating a greater economic power to suit the UK. What they did not anticipate however, was that the settlers in these new lands would want their own power, so that they could profit from the resources that they had come to obtain in these lands. Although they would control their own wealth, it would come at a cost to the colonizers… they would need to fight for this power, and they would need to form their own social construct (or at least reform it) so that they would no longer be dependant on British rule. This would all mean a temporary set-back, but as you have mentioned, the US is now what we would consider an economic power.