Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Bombing after Manchester, UK concert
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Frederick" data-source="post: 2990003" data-attributes="member: 17825"><p>I think the difference lies in culture. Asian culture is less tribal than middle eastern culture.</p><p></p><p>There is a theory that certain groups of humans managed to develop faster as a result of agriculture and climate. Europeans and East Asians had abundant agriculture and the climate was not conducive to the sort of diseases prevalent in the tropical regions. As a result, humans in these areas were able to settle down and develop long-term civilizations in cities.</p><p></p><p>Some areas, like the Middle East and Africa, spent thousands of years as nomadic tribesmen. That sort of lifestyle is not good for the maintenance of civilization. It's hard to support massive populations without agriculture and only as hunter-gatherers. Areas like these have not developed as well as E.G. South Korea(east asian country) had.</p><p></p><p>So you have a culture that is still very backwards and tribal, vs a country that is very homogenous and civilized.</p><p></p><p>Places like Iraq and Libya were ruled by brutal dictators, who, similar to Syria, ruled over their countries by simply putting their tribe/ethnic/religious group as superior to all the others. and then violently and brutally oppressed everyone else. They were not like South Korea, a homogenous, culturally unified and prosperous nation-state. They were simply a tribal nation that was ruled over by a small sect of the country.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Frederick, post: 2990003, member: 17825"] I think the difference lies in culture. Asian culture is less tribal than middle eastern culture. There is a theory that certain groups of humans managed to develop faster as a result of agriculture and climate. Europeans and East Asians had abundant agriculture and the climate was not conducive to the sort of diseases prevalent in the tropical regions. As a result, humans in these areas were able to settle down and develop long-term civilizations in cities. Some areas, like the Middle East and Africa, spent thousands of years as nomadic tribesmen. That sort of lifestyle is not good for the maintenance of civilization. It's hard to support massive populations without agriculture and only as hunter-gatherers. Areas like these have not developed as well as E.G. South Korea(east asian country) had. So you have a culture that is still very backwards and tribal, vs a country that is very homogenous and civilized. Places like Iraq and Libya were ruled by brutal dictators, who, similar to Syria, ruled over their countries by simply putting their tribe/ethnic/religious group as superior to all the others. and then violently and brutally oppressed everyone else. They were not like South Korea, a homogenous, culturally unified and prosperous nation-state. They were simply a tribal nation that was ruled over by a small sect of the country. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Bombing after Manchester, UK concert
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom