[Der_Einzige]

You’re getting these responses because Americans have been trained Pavlovian style to never ever claim that some cultures are better than others. This is despite most, including those who think they don’t, implicitly believing this

[churchill]

And it's annoying like hell when I (a Nigerian) try to explain to an European/African how I can't move an inch without paying a bribe and they tell you to focus on the bright side or abstract notions like the diversity of the continent, blah blah blah.

Most African countries got independence in the 1940 - 1970s. Israel was established in 1948, while Singapore became independent in 1967. While most African states busied themselves with denouncing colonialism, playing around with the Soviets, or murdering any ethnic minority that didn't agree with the party line, Singapore went from being a slum to an economic powerhouse; Israel is essentially indispensable to the west as the economic/military intelligence key to the Middle East now.

So, i's hard to celebrate any advancement when we could be much further. Western optimists might feel otherwise, but perspective is everything, I guess?

[kwere]

Singapore is a special case, Korea is more a fair comparison, the country was by most metrics in a worse shape than most (african & non) colonies at the indipendence/civil war. Korea developed well considering its starting position

[maeil]

> Most African countries got independence in the 1940 - 1970s. Israel was established in 1948, while Singapore became independent in 1967. While most African states busied themselves with denouncing colonialism, playing around with the Soviets, or murdering any ethnic minority that didn't agree with the party line, Singapore went from being a slum to an economic powerhouse; Israel is essentially indispensable to the west as the economic/military intelligence key to the Middle East now.

To give two more examples, in 1960 South Korea's GDP/Capita was similar to Sudan and significantly lower than Taiwan's which was similar to Northern African countries (Tunisia, Morocco). Algeria was much richer than either, I assume thanks to oil.

[alephnerd]

Singapore had a much stronger base than any other Asian country other than Hong Kong in the mid-20th century.

Singapore was one of the richest Asian countries on a GDP per Capita basis in 1960. It was comparable to other middle income countries in that era like Southern Europe and South America [0].

LKY talking about Singapore as if it was a third world hell hole is just disingenuous PR to make the PAP look much more impressive. Even Taiwan and South Korea were much poorer than Singapore back then, but they've both caught up to Singapore by 2023. In fact, if you compare Singapore with other cities in first world Asia, then it's largely been outpaced by Seoul and Tokyo.

[0] https://cepr.net/documents/publications/econ_growth_2005_11_...

[mips_r4300i]

Is this a form of moral relativism where everyone and everything must have equal intrinsic value?

What if we argue a 1971 Ford Pinto is actually just a good a car as a 2003 Honda Civic. Sure, it's old, the fuel tanks rupture in an accident, and it had the largest recall in automotive history, but at least it was affordable, allowing societal mobility?

What is this phenomenon called?

[camdat]

I'm curious which cultures you believe are worst than others?

Which one is the worst?

[churchill]

Radical Islam for one is rabidly anti-intellectual. The only conservative Muslim countries that are anything to write home about are oil-rich and have extremely small populations.

As a result, it's easy for the government to subsidize their citizens heavily and build lots of shiny skyscrapers to attract western tourists without developing human capital significantly.

Call me Islamophobic but I say this as a Nigerian, living in a country with the largest Muslim population in Africa (second-largest in the world after Indonesia) where people still get lynched and burned for "blasphemy."

[Karrot_Kream]

Radical religious groups are always rabidly anti-intellectual. The better question to ask is why there are so many more radical Muslims than radical Christians. That's where I think a wider view is important.

[mrkstu]

The main difference is that you can fully implement a 'Christian' values state and it isn't going against the grain to base it on mercy, equality, and not 'othering' those who don't agree. In other words a fully Christian society can fully implement the teachings found in the New Testament and not be considered 'radical' in any sense by a non-Christian living in that society. While it may be 'missionary' oriented it also wouldn't require exporting its philosophy. It also is comfortable separating civil and religious law - 'render unto Ceasar.'

Islam, fully implementing the Koran, is basically the opposite.

It requires fidelity at the threat of death and the forced conversion of outsiders. It requires civil and religious law to be the same.

Iran for instance instantiates the tenets of Islam in fact.

The Christian theocracies are basically historical dead letters at this point- and were mostly overlays on existing government structures:

The Roman Empire for instance continued to be Rome after the Emperors became Christian- it never really, despite the Pope's best efforts, become more than a light overlay on existing government structures, with King's utilizing theories of 'Divine Right of Kings' as a useful way to perpetuate their existing hierarchies. Even countries like Armenia that claimed explicitly to be Christian states aren't actually ruled by the priesthood- they have established national religions in many historical instances, not a truly religiously run state like Iran where the mullah's are the ultimate authority.

Rome/Papal States, Peter the great, Geneva/Calvin, some slice of the Byzantine empire, along with pre-United States Utah (and in a smaller scale the city of Nauvoo,) where you have had the clerical and government structures completely united in a Christian state that I can think of off hand. England in a much looser sense qualifies. And in these cases you generally again have, relative to Islam, a non-radical, especially as it relates to outsiders, experience.

[Aerbil313]

Muslims are 'radical' because they stick to Qur'an, their book. Christians should also be sharing most of the same principles, if they are honest about following both Testaments. But hey, apparently they are mere "tales" nowadays if you ask a self-proclaimed Christian and you can see churches with pride flags. Christianity is dead because there is no one left who lives as per their book. It's arguably not very possible too, given that it is self-conflicting in many instances. Muslim view on this is that Jews tried to kill Jesus, weren't able to, and then corrupted the original Bible in an attempt to divide Christians.

> It requires fidelity at the threat of death and the forced conversion of outsiders.

Islam does not require forced conversion of outsiders. It can be said to require dominating Earth as a goal, but Christians and Jews lived peacefully under Islamic rule for millenia.

Fidelity at the threat of death is only if the person committing adultery is married and at least 4 people witnessed the incident. This requirement is rarely satisfied, while being enough too deter people to stay away from this act.

> Iran for instance instantiates the tenets of Islam in fact.

Iran is Shiite. They are a deviant sect. Doesn't mean all their practices represent Islam. There will be multiple deviant sects in any religion with billions of population. Vast majority of Muslims are Sunnis who are following the original teachings.

Important to note is all Islamic punishments regarding sins apply to Muslims, not people of other religions. They are (and historically were) free to do whatever they want, barring things like insulting people and betraying the state, which are also punishable under current secular law.

Christianity got killed first in the hands of St. Paul who basically changed Bible to his liking - and then by the Roman emperor whom I forgot his name who selected 4 out of the 400 Bibles available at the time in that famous meeting.