Readers of this blog DAMIEN, EMPEDOCLES,DUCKY, Z and I came up with a list of arguments against multicultural education (ME). The list below makes it clear that we must stop multiculturalism and replace it with culturism. These arguments provide important intellectual weapons in this battle.
#1 – ME is offered as the cure for America’s having been an especially racist nation. Our accomplishments far outweigh our sins. ME slanders our good name.
#2 – ME greatly diminishes critical thought by greatly distorting global history and underplaying the lack of cohesion in western history.
#3 - ME has us sloppily making amends to people who we never discriminated against in any meaningful sense. We need not feel guilty to cultures that were not here to be discriminated against.
#4 – ME doesn’t really believe diversity is real. Multiculturalism teaches that, deep down, all cultures basically advocate variations of secular humanism.
#5 – ME allows Islam to use the schools to inculcate our children with their doctrine.
#6 – ME teaches that total equality is the natural state. ME then uses our inequality to argue for “social justice.” This implies we are unjust and need redistribution of wealth to correct for all existing inequality.
#7 – By teaching that our society is racist and unjust, ME turns resistance to participating in our society into a virtue. It thus especially hinders the education of minorities.
#8 – In a desire to create ethnic pride, ME falsifies the anthropological record. Early cultures were very violent. This misreading makes us cynical about progress and America’s historical mission.
#9 – ME blinds us to real evils in the world. It says that since all cultures are equally worthy of praise, attempts to distinguish between cultures is irrational racism.
#10 – ME becomes hypocritical the minute it makes any judgments. It thus undermines attempts to teach values.
#11 – Because western civilization has had an enormous influence on the world, ME teaches our culture is uniquely bad for disturbing indigenous cultures. Supporting western culture then becomes synonymous with advocating white supremacy.
#12 – ME denies that we have a core culture and thus undermines teaching western history. This makes us vulnerable to having no common cultural language to draw upon and encourages the forgetting of our heritage.
#13 – ME actually only acknowledges liberal values. Christian disagreement with gay marriage cannot be celebrated.
#14 – Undercuts schools’ universal and historic mission of socializing youth into the society in which they will live their lives. Schools thus lose their purpose.
#15 – Undermining our pride in our culture decreases our citizens’ desire to protect it. ME thereby puts us in a weak position in competition with cultures that create fanatical pride in their culture.
#16 - ME teaches that your ancestors' culture determines your identity and views. It thus diminishes freedom.
#17 – ME routinely confuses culture and race. It thus inhibits frank and realistic discussions about diversity.
#18 – ME divides us.
#19 - ME undermines critical thought by telling us we must celebrate all cultural attributes.
#20 – For all of the above reasons, multiculturalism threatens the survival of western civilization.
Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. It counters all of these grave evils. We need to identify as culturists to save western civilization.
PLEASE GO TO ISI's AMAZING LECTURE COLLECTION AND WATCH THEIR DEBATE OVER MULTICULTURALISM at http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx
47 comments:
Please make clear that we don't all subscribe to everything on this list. I disagree with several of the points, for example, #16. I do believe that your ancestors' culture determines your identity and views.
Here is another one you can ad:
Suppose two cultures were having a dispute. The star-bellied Sneetches like to play their humphaphones every day at 6 PM, and the non-star-bellied Sneetches like to eat their dinners in silence at that time. The majority non-star-bellied Sneeches want to pass a noise ordinance in the neighborhood. The star-bellied-Sneeches say that this infringes on their culture. What should we do? Integration would say that the minority culture should integrate with the majority culture and give up their practice. Separatism would say that both groups can keep their practices, but do them in separate places. But what would multiculturalism say? I used to think that multiculturalism provided no answer to the question, that it was an empty doctrine. Then it hit me: multiculturalism would say that it is the majority that must give up their cultural practice and adopt the culture of the minority group, that unless the majority accomodates the cultural practice of the minority, some moral evil has occurred. Thus we see all these ridiculous efforts in the Western world to appease other cultures by abandoning their own cultural practice and accepting practices and demands that they would normally not.
Empedocles,
you said,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please make clear that we don't all subscribe to everything on this list. I disagree with several of the points, for example, #16. I do believe that your ancestors' culture determines your identity and views.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it does not. You may actually disagree with the overwhelming majority of your ancestors regardless of weather the overwhelming majority of them came from one culture or not. Plus what if your ancestors culture was say destroyed by culture X and you were raised in culture X and had no knowledge of your ancestors' culture how would it affect you? Do the decedents of blacks taken from Africa as slaves still share all the views of their pre enslaved tribal ancestors? No of course they don't. To claim that the culture of your ancestors determines your views comes close to racism, because just because your ancestors believed in something doesn't mean you will. Beyond that cultures do change over time.
Now the Culture you were raised in can have a significant effect on your values and your view of the world. If a white Anglo American baby was taken before it even learned to speak and raised by a tribe of black Africans known as say, "Mumbas" and treated the same way they would treat another tribe member, would that baby, when it reaches adulthood, would its world view be more similar to a typical westerner, or would it be more similar to that of the theoretical Mumbas tribal culture? Which do you think would be more likely. What if the situation was reversed and an orphaned baby from the Mumbas tribe ended up in New York and was raised by westerners? How would that baby view the world when it grew up then?
If race does not determine views, how can your ancestors culture, when you have never had any contact with it? Now genetics my predispose certain people to certain things. Maybe some people are more genetically predispose to violence than others. Maybe some people are more genetically predispose to wanting to create thing than others. However, culture is not genetic. Culture is the sum of all learned behavior. Genes are innate, culture is learned.
I will try to answer your objections. To do so we need to discuss a bit about what a culture is. Cultures are idea copy-chains. Under "idea" I include beliefs, behaviors, art, and morals. Over time, ideas are copied, sometimes altered, and then passed down through generations. This is a very different conception of culture from those who define a culture as a set of beliefs and customs like I suspect you do. In this way it makes sense to speak of "Western culture" despite the fact that what today constitutes Western culture is very different from any other historical period. Western culture is an idea copy-chain descending from the Greeks, and even though what we call Western culture today is very different from the beliefs, morals, art, and behavior of the Greeks, our ideas originated from them and have been copied and modified through the various historical eras of the Romans, Middle Ages, Renaissance, and the Enlightenment in a chain leading back to them. The chains do branch however (sorry for the mixed metaphor). And although, say, American culture and French culture are very different, they both are branches of the tree that started with the Greeks and are thus both part of the Western heritage. (I am aware that the Greeks also inherited the ideas they revolutionarily altered.) To have a culture is to have your ideas, beliefs, arts, and morals be the latest link in a copy-chain and to acknowledge that your identity is the result of this chain. Because of this, rather than saying that people have a culture, it makes more sense to say that people are part of their culture, or better yet embody their culture.
Our bodies are copy-chains as well, but here it is our genes that are inherited, sometimes altered, and then passed down through generations. Until recently, having a culture was to have your family lineage be part of the biological copy-chain that was the means by which ideas were passed down--the biological copy-chain, and the idea copy-chain followed the same path. Your heritage was your identity as all your beliefs, possessions, values, arts, and religion, even your body, in short, everything about you, was the result of your historical heritage. Thus people valued and honored the customs and heritage as well as the tragedies and triumphs of their ancestors. It made sense to say that "we" suffered the defeats, or that "we" enjoyed the triumphs of our ancestors in the sense that we are a link in the great copy-chain that traces back to our ancestors and defines who we are. For example, in the United States you will hear that "we" defeated the British, the Germans, and the Communists when strictly speaking, very few living people did any of these things. I take "Culturism" to be an attempt to keep people seeing their identity is this way and identifying with their cultural heritage. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, to address your specific points.
Argument 1: "You may actually disagree with the overwhelming majority of your ancestors regardless of weather the overwhelming majority of them came from one culture or not."
So what? I don't agree with the views of the Greeks, or Romans, or Middle Ages, and they're still part of my cultural heritage. On your view we would have to agree with all of our ancestors in order to include them as a part of our culture. In such a case you could not claim that the Greeks are a part of Western culture since we don't agree with them today. This is not the case.
Argument 2: "what if your ancestors culture was say destroyed by culture X and you were raised in culture X and had no knowledge of your ancestors' culture how would it affect you?"
The act of the destruction of your ancentors' culture is a part of your history, it is a huge part of the explanation of how you ended up with the ideas and values you currently have. Similarly, how many Westerners today know anything about the Greeks? That doesn't stop the Greeks from being part of their heritage. You seems to subscribe to the principle that in order for something to be a part of your culture, you must have knowledge of your cultural history, which is patently false.
Argument 3: "Do the decedents of blacks taken from Africa as slaves still share all the views of their pre enslaved tribal ancestors?"
No, but neither do I share just about any of the views of my ancestors, but they are still part of my culture. Similarly, African-Americans don't have to share any of the views of their ancestors to have African culture as a part of their heritage. I suspect that most African-Americans identify with their African heritage more than thinking of themselves as Europeans.
Argument 4: "just because your ancestors believed in something doesn't mean you will. Beyond that cultures do change over time."
No objection to this.
Argument 5: "If a white Anglo American baby was taken before it even learned to speak and raised by a tribe of black Africans known as say, "Mumbas" and treated the same way they would treat another tribe member, would that baby, when it reaches adulthood, would its world view be more similar to a typical westerner, or would it be more similar to that of the theoretical Mumbas tribal culture?"
As I mentioned, there are 2 copy-chains: the idea copy-chain, and the biological copy-chain. For much of human history these two coincided in that ideas were handed down through generations along side genes. In the example above, the link has been severed and the baby has inherited the ideas from the Mumbai culture. The ancestors in question that determine one's culture are the ancestors of the ideas, not the genes. People in such situations often feel confused about which culture they do belong to and don't feel quite at home in either since Normally (in the Millikan sense), ideas and genes follow the same paths.
Argument 6: "culture is not genetic. Culture is the sum of all learned behavior. Genes are innate, culture is learned."
My discussion of the different between the idea copy-chain and the biological copy-chain should clear this up. Culture is not "the sum of all learned behavior." Culture is a history, not a set of beliefs.
I hope I was able to make a convincing argument and to answer your objections.
Empedocles,
We can argue over semantics all you want, but its pointless. According to my definition of culture, it can't include non learned behavior. The definition I am using I learned in cultural anthropology.
Also, as far as I am concerned, we need a word to distinguish non learned behavior and thought, such as instincts and predispositions, from learned behavior and thought, such as customs. The way I define culture is the sum of all learned behavior. My definition has no biological component. Although I would not argue that there is no biological component to human thought or behavior. The evidence to the contrary is too great.
By the way, the Mumbas, don't exist, I made them up to use as a theoretical example, a thought experiment. I'm not talking about the "Mumbai," just to let you know.
If #16 were true, it would support that America has no culture, our culture would be what it's now becoming..a mishmosh of everybody's ancestry.
This list is amazing.
I guess #18 is the most worrying in its truth, for me (for our country), anyway.
And, I won't weigh in much more because this is all a bit over my head, not my milieu....Just know I'm immensely enjoying the exchange of Empedocles and Damien..again. Thanks.
BUT!! come to think of it..something's on my mind..May I throw in a question?
French culture was mentioned and it got me thinking about France and Germany, two countries in which I've had the great pleasure to live. ...
Their cultures have been paramount... cherished, passed on.......celebrated...through generations.
Until NOW. Odd, but I know for a fact that the aliens who've moved in in very large numbers have drowned out and even embarrassed those wonderful individual cultures into a kind of submission......"we're here now..how dare you insinuate you have a culture when we don't fit it!?" England probably has the same situation, come to think of it?
Anybody here can argue that till the cows come home (that's a technical term from harvard!) and I'll stand by it with all I've got in me. I've lived it. I've seen it.......I've had Germans and French tell me this, too.
This is a threat to all wonderful, rich cultures.. I told my German husband I hated the idea of the EU when it was first bandied about..I said "This will break down cultures, make Europe one big vanilla culture.." He didn't agree but he does now. The money started, the Euro.....what's next? Starbucks is in Europe.....etc..ARGH! French people whose culture included cigarettes and cafe cremes (be still my silly heart) are going to STARBUCKS!
Okay...I am probably off topic, but.......if you can address this, I'd like it!! ?
Z,
you said,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If #16 were true, it would support that America has no culture, our culture would be what it's now becoming..a mishmosh of everybody's ancestry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not based on the definition of culture I learned in anthropology. It doesn't matter what your ancestors believed, if they were unable to pass any of those beliefs onto you. Plus, the statement, that your ancestors culture determines your identity, sounds like its saying its the only factor, and not one of many factors. Even if it were a true, you'd then have to explain things like people who are the decedents of white slave owners, who despite the fact, are not racist and don't support slavery.
#16 - ME teaches that your ancestors' culture determines your identity and views. It thus diminishes freedom.
It CAN inform our identity and views but it does not DETERMINE it, that's for sure. But the ME people think it's true and, therefore, how can we go on to have a culture of our own, an American culture? THIS promotes the nonsense I see at middle schools, for example...everybody celebrates every "DAY" and every odd cultural celebration they can and American culture is becoming disregarded.
Empedocles,
I did not mean to imply that everyone accepted all, only that I wished to show my appreciation.
And, yes, I agree with the star -belly leeches example. But here individualism is even worse. It says that if one individual objects the majority practice must cease! Individualism must be balanced out with a healthy sense of culturism. If that individual or community hates the locality, they are free to leave.
I AGREE WITH Z!!! This is a very, very interesting debate. It is nearly 5 in the morning and I'm going to post the DC rally results. So until I wake up tomorrow, I cannot think any more.
Thanks all - John
Also, I forgot about this, but in addition, we really shouldn't confuse heritage with culture either.
Fellas,
You seem to be agreeing to a considerable extent.
Empedocles noting that culture does not have to be understood is beautifully noted and stated. Creating culture anew every generation does not take place by the scouring of the human record. It gets soaked in from various sources; peers are very important here. The larger society and schools transmit these too. But much of this is in the form of assumptions about the world. When a teen tells a teacher, "You can't tell me what to do" they unknowingly are following their culture's lead.
Hence in #16 we have an irony. In the West your past conditions you to think of yourself as new and unattached to the past. Our ideal is one of self-creation. While this will get modified by ancestoral permutations, the mode that we westerners should emphasize is self-creation and self-governance: individualism.
Ironically, this is in conformity with our past. But the idea that there is an authentic black or Latino or . . . vantage point that determines who you are rubs harder against our traditions. Again, this is a matter of emphasis. But to say because you're black you're democrat and resentful disrespects the western promise.
I agree with Damien in that this is not genetic. If you were raised in Mumbas, you would absorb the status symbols, language and levels of trust appropriate to Mumbasland. That is why controlling our culture via schools and public morals is important. It is not innate. In fact, our gestation period suggests passing our culture on is a natural and necessary function.
Empedocles, I am glad you see the bush as well as the branches. Western civ is a moving and branching target. But it is a story with parameters. It is not the Hindu story. The French branch stems from the trunk of Christian,Greek and Roman history. As does the British and the Austrians and the . . .
Z, Another Harvard - based intellectual source is the game, "one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same." I wonder, if it does not sink, if France and Germany will come to better understand their commonality and ties to their heritage via this trial. It may then make them more similar.
Will it make them more vanilla? I am nuts!! But I think even starbucks has some good western values in it. We all get different drinks. We worry about calories because of our fates in this world. We need coffee to WORK!!
I have noted before that eating Chinese food does not make you Chinese. I do not know if but people all approach a starbucks the same way or are impacted by it the same way. That is likely a bit off topic. But, while I don't like the EEU. I do not fear the Germans and the French becoming indistinguishable any time soon.
What do you think? THANKS ALL!!!
Culturist John,
I wouldn't say that we don't have to fear for the future of Europe. Look at this. Do you know who Geert Wilders is? He's the man who made Fitna and he's going to be charged for making anti-Islamic statements in the Neitherlands.
To make a few points--Damian said:
"Plus, the statement, that your ancestors culture determines your identity, sounds like its saying its the only factor, and not one of many factors. Even if it were a true, you'd then have to explain things like people who are the decedents of white slave owners, who despite the fact, are not racist and don't support slavery."
Again, there are two types of ancestors: the ancestors of your genes, and the ancestors of your ideas. Traditionally these were the same) and by "traditionally" I'm talking about in human pre-history), but today ideas are copied and replicated in many ways, through books, tv, radio, Internet. The purpose of education is to replicate ideas to children, so it is very easy for someone to have ideas that their biological ancestors do not have.
"we really shouldn't confuse heritage with culture either"
Yes, we should as long as "heritage" in understood as the copy-chain of ideas from their origins, their changes over time, until they ended up in us.
Discussing the ways that ideas change over time would take forever. Some ideas go extinct (caloric, phlogiston), some divide into new lineages. What is most interesting is how values change. Values are the lessons of history, and historical events change values. The US Constitution embodies the lessons learned from the abuses of power by European monarchs, for example. The way sexual morality changed after the introduction of cheap and effective birth control is another, and the way the US attitude to standing armies changed after Pearl Harbor is a third.
This leads me into John's point that: "In the West your past conditions you to think of yourself as new and unattached to the past. Our ideal is one of self-creation."
This view that the goal is self-creation is the heritage of Nietzsche and existentialism, and should be the enemy of Culturism. It is a relatively new idea in the West and is one of the causes of multiculturalism. The far more venerable Western tradition is self-discovery, not self-creation. The existentialists, and those I call the Personas, believe they are free from outside influences and purely self-created individuals and are unaware of the historical origins of the ideas, tastes, and values that constitute the self. They have rejected the notion that there is any kind of causal, historical, or cultural influence on their self, or have come to convince themselves that they have managed to throw off such influences, when in fact all their ideas and values have been formulated by others and inherited by them.
We are all part of an historical heritage, whether we admit it or not, have inherited our ideas and values as passed down through our culture. But the project of modern liberals (and libertarians), that is, Personas, is to strip away any emotional connection to an historical cultural heritage, or identification with any outside influence, whether moral, intellectual, or social. Only then can a person be authentic, free, and individual. The problem is, when you strip away any emotional connection to a historical heritage and any notion of intellectual inheritance, nothing is left except alienation on the Left and will to power on the Right.
Accepting the view that Personahood is the road to freedom results in an embrace of multiculturalism. After all, Personas are free from emotional connections to a cultural heritage or sense of kinship with others based on a common ethnic heritage. Thus all cultures are equal in their eyes and they possess no special loyalty to one culture over another. To Personas, with no emotional attachment to any historical tradition and identifying with no heritage, multiculturalism is like a show put on for their amusement; freed from caring about a particular heritage they are able to consume the world's cultural heritage while being responsible for none.
Empedocles,
You and I are talking about two different things when we talk about culture. My definition of culture is the sum of all learned behavior. It has no biological component, and I am well aware that western culture today is different than western culture in the past. I am most certainly not saying we shouldn't have an emotional attachment to our past either.
Empedocles
you said,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This view that the goal is self-creation is the heritage of Nietzsche and existentialism, and should be the enemy of Culturism. It is a relatively new idea in the West and is one of the causes of multiculturalism. The far more venerable Western tradition is self-discovery, not self-creation. The existentialists, and those I call the Personas, believe they are free from outside influences and purely self-created individuals and are unaware of the historical origins of the ideas, tastes, and values that constitute the self. They have rejected the notion that there is any kind of causal, historical, or cultural influence on their self, or have come to convince themselves that they have managed to throw off such influences, when in fact all their ideas and values have been formulated by others and inherited by them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayn Rand, founder of the objectivist movement, believed in a radical notion of free will, or what you might refer to as "Self Creation"
According to Greg Nyquist at the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rand’s theory of human nature is based on the idea that the human mind enjoys complete sovereignty over the body and the will. “Everything we do and are proceeds from the mind,” Rand once declared. ”Our mind can be made to control everything.” Man, we are told, is given his body, his mind, and the “mechanics of consciousness.” The rest is up to him – “he must create himself.” This suggests that man begins as a sort of of empty vacuum which through some mysterious process creates a specific character ex nihilo – out of nothing!
This conviction that man creates himself is fundamental to her entire philosophy. In order for a man to be genuinely ideal in Rand’s eyes, he had to be able to take full credit for all his characteristics. He couldn’t merely have been endowed with them at birth – no, he had to create them out of nothing with his own unaided effort, like Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of the mire by his own hair.
The most interesting part of this unlikely theory is its moral and psychological consequences – for as a result, man must be entirely responsible for what he becomes. Everything about his character, including his emotions, impulses, desires, motivations, passions is the product of his own choices. So if a man feels improper emotions or immoral desires, it is his responsibility to make the effort to change them by reprogramming his subconscious using reason. “Nothing less than perfection will do,” she declared. This personal Nirvana was what she called being “fully integrated” – where one never experiences any inner conflicts between what one thinks and what one feels, a blessed state where “mind and emotions are in harmony.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
source
Yet many modern objectivists oppose multiculturalism,
according to The Digital Collegian article entitled, "Objectivist speaker condemns multiculturalism at universities"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Simpson, faculty adviser of the Penn State Objectivist Club, said multiculturalism does not necessarily mean what most people think it does.
"A lot of people think multiculturalism means tolerance of other cultures -- it doesn't," Simpson said. "It means the exact opposite of tolerance."
Simpson said universities, especially Penn State, do have some racist policies, but radical feminism and other multiculturalism movements, while working to combat unfair policies, end up doing more harm than good.
Hull likened the views of the multiculturalist to that of a sadistic doctor who treats healthy patients by infecting them with viruses and breaking their legs and later asking them to come back for more.
Hull explained that the "doctor" is the post-modern professor, the "patients" are the university students and the "viruses" are multiculturalism and post-modernism.
Hull said multiculturalists argue that all cultures are equal and that Western culture is arrogant, believing it is superior to other societies.
"They believe that no society is superior -- a concerto by Mozart is no greater than the beating of a tom-tom," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
source
You could also argue that Rand was every bit as universalist as Kant, despite the fact that she hated him and blamed him for the problems of the world, for reasons radically different than John's.
She saw her system of ethics as completely objective and you could argue universal.
This is one of the reasons I don't see things exactly the same way John does.
Yet Simpson is not the only objectivist opponent of multiculturalism.
According to Sarita at The Kalamazoo Objectivist,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did humanity survive without multiculturalism up until the late 20th century? And why does this dreadful idea-that all cultures are equally deserving of our respect and awe-linger in our colleges and news media when all can see how devastating it is when our soldiers have to fight "carefully" so as not to kill "innocent" Iraqis or target a mosque? I think this is the result of decades of neglect of American History and World History by our rotten public schools.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
source
Culturist John, if you also want to chime in, feel welcome, this is your blog after all.
Empedocles,
So we have a problem with your idea that people accepting the notion of "self creation," leads to people embracing multiculturalism.
Damien,
Do we not have to fear for the future cause the present is bad enough?? We should give Geerz asylum, but I don't think he'd run.
Empedocles,
Of course there is NO identity free of cultural influence. In culturism's psychology chapter I look at differences in the way people actually see - preverbally - in cultures. As a CULTURIST you should know I do not ever postulate an individual free of context. You should know that I do not argue for personas.
That the persona would lead to multiculturalism is interesting. It does imply no real connection to a culture. In culturism (Did I say I'd love to send you a free copy??) I talk about multiculturalism leading long-term Americans, with no old world attachment, to feel alienation. Within western civilization, rather than shrinking due to alienation, we should embrace it as a heroic aspect of our western epic.
Out of context, that may sound too much like an argument for persona. But that would take our culture too much for granted. Confucianism would not postulate alienation as a source of commonality. Neither would Islam. And if we embraced the progressive nature of the West it would give us a common goal we would be striving for together.
Thanks!!!
Culturist John,
As for Geert Wilders, there's a petition you could sign, if you want to and you haven't already. At the very least, its a nice form of protest.
It might make somewhat of a difference.
Come on John, your contradictions are piling up an an alarming rate (although you call them "ironies"). You can't be both for embracing the Western heritage and for embracing alienation, you can't be against Kantian universality and for Kantian individuality, you can't be for both self-creation and cultural identity. I'm beginning to agree with your critics that you really have only two convictions: no Mexicans, and no Muslims, the rest being window dressing. You're for alienation if alienation will help us defeat Islam, you're for unity if unity will help us defeat Islam. You're for individual rights if that will help us defeat Islam, you're against individual rights if that will help us defeat Islam. Please prove me wrong.
Empedocles
D and E,
Did either of you get over to the ISI lecture site? It is very cool.
http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx
Damien,
Thanks for the Wilders petition. I signed it.
I think Rand is cool, but I have problems with her. Her individualism may be close to what Empedocles calls a persona. It has no sense of the past. That is partially why the modernist buildings she approved for the Fountainhead were all so, in my opinion, cold and sterile.
Her arguments reflect the struggle between communism and capitalism that raged during her time. To the extent that we still have lingering socialism, her arguments are important. Since the importance of the battle between the two great western models of the USSR and USA diminished, we have seen the rise of Islam. Were she alive I think she might have appreciated her dependence on her society more.
Empedocles,
The best way for me to "prove" my coherence to you would be for you to read full chapters of my work instead of summaries on the blog.
Ironies exist. An emphasis on individualism being a source of our commonality is an irony. That alienation and self-direction are two sides of the same coin is a traditional western irony. I take that as the major theme of Hamlet. He must decide and yet he recognizes the arbitrary nature of his world. The Protestant-laden questioning he learned at Wittenberg gets him into trouble. I just wish Hamlet saw his as a traditional western conundrum and embraced his role earlier in the play!!
In my understanding Heideggar focuses on alienation and belonging. Keirkegaard is said to have started this for us with his fear and trembling over not knowing. But the Puritans, as Max Weber tells us, suffered from existential angst that drove them to relentlessly prove themselves. Monastic mortification of the flesh can be seen as punishment for belonging. It is even said that Plato's dialogue wherein Socrates takes the hemlock was written to counter the anarchical potential in the "do-your-own-thing" message of the Apology. You seem really well read. Have you not noticed this theme in western civilization?
I simply do not accept your assertion that individualism in the western tradition was created whole cloth by Kant. I draw heavily from Alasdair MacIntyre. As he advocates, the embedded individualism of Aristotle is much more to my liking than the arid abstractions of Kant's universalism. Again, Christ and Socrates and the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance and Hidalgos all provide alternate sources and variations of individualism. In my reading of history, there are other western sources of individualism, much more sustainable, embedded and realistic sources of individualism, than Kant's universal truths based on decontextualized rationality.
Thanks guys!! John
Culturist John,
I haven't looked much at the ISI lecture site. Maybe I will later.
As for your statement about Rand, I don't know how she would think if she were still alive today.
Her followers still embrace her philosophy, often in total, despite any threat from Islam. Some of them maybe embracing it even more so today, seeing in it a way to combat Islam, as well as the continued advance of socialism and collectivism. In fact some of them, like Bosch_Fawstin who I admire, despite our disagreements, is devoted to fighting Islam.
If you want to read an interesting and through critic of her philosophy, read Ayn_Rand_Contra_Human_Nature by Greg Nyquist. Its very well written and I happen to agree with a lot of it. I personally regard Rand and Piekoff as hypocrites, for condemning mysticism while embracing it. As Nyquist points out on page 18 of his book, they believed in something they called the choice to be in focus or not. Which objectivism insists has no prior cause, and Nyqiusts basically points out that its mysticism pure and simple.
That said I don't entirely agree or entirely disagree with her philosophy. I think it has some basis in fact, but there are huge problems with it. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. If you are interested and have the time you could check out the blog based on Nyquist's book.
Guys,
I'm going to California for a few days. I'll be back on Monday.
Thanks for all your posts!!!
John
Culturist John,
Your welcome. Have a nice trip.
I love America, John, but I love Europe, too....living there, having your own home, shopping at the local green grocer, etcetc., gives one QUITE another feeling about Europe. The charm of the different cultures is astonishingly rich and worthwhile holding on to.
I DO believe that it might not come soon, but that Europe mustn't become one big vanilla melting pot. No, the architecture won't change much (each country has a peculiar and individually wonderful 'landscape'), the music won't change (believe it or not, the popular music is quite different between countries), etc etc.......
But, having the same money, having the same Starbucks and McDo's (McDonald's as it's called in Paris), etc....the EURO in common, etc., just seem to me to shove Germany and France (and other countries, but I can really only address these two with any intimate knowledge) into a vanilla cultural mix. It HAS to.
Even here, our cities have been homogenized with COSTCO, TARGET, STARBUCKS, BARNES AND NOBLE...In this way, this sameness across the country, even CITIES have lost their own charm, their own CULTURES, in a way.....
I think I'm over my head on this stuff, considering the more but this is how I feel......it may not happen in three years, but in fifteen? I firmly believe we'll be seeing too homogeneous a Europe.
For what it's worth, I'd define culture more like Damien does....learned behavior.......
And, yes, regarding Damien's point about ...Europe will probably also be homogenized by the amount of mosques in every city. They'll become our COSTCO (except we'll also haev Costco AND mosques everywhere in ten years). Of COURSE we have to worry about Europe's future. The Germans have been terribly threatened by Al Qaeda this week, has your media told you that? I don't think so.
I grieve.
Z,
With things going on in Europe like the prosecution of Geert Wilders for criticizing Islam, and large numbers of Muslim immigrations entering the continent and refusing to assimilate, or respect the rights of non Muslims who live there, combined with the region's low birth rate, I fear Europe's future will be far worse then just homogenization.
Watch this video if you don't know what I'm talking about. It illustrates the worst case scenario perfectly.
Damien, I just can't watch the video, although I probably have somewhere......it's so unbelievable to me that they're building a mosque bigger than the Cologne Dome, for example. And that beautiful little churches around Europe are mosques now.
I do think the Europeans are less politically correct and are getting a bit better at fighting back than we are, but I think it's a bit too late. Germany will go into mosques and send an angry Imam back that day. Try that HERE!! I see your point about how what's coming is worse than homogenization..my German stepkids in Munich had to come here and listen to us before they realized they'd better stop being so INCLUSIVE and UNDERSTANDING. They've completely opened their eyes now. It took US???!
I want my world back. That's for sure.
Z,
I haven't been outside the U.S much, and I have yet to visit Europe, but I definitively share your sentiment.
Z,
For what it is worth. Culturism is provided as an alternative to globalism also. The idea that we have no loyalty to our nation is wrong. We are seeing some of the impacts of allowing our manufacturing to go overseas now. The stimulus package stimulates China as much as us.
That said, if a country wants to accept Starbucks, I have no argument against that. But they have the right and possibly the responsibility to block or guide its entrance into their nation. We should also have local politics vibrant enough to collectively decide what our localities should look like.
I empathize with the idea that our nation has forsaken aesthetics, even historical tradition, as a sense of value. I too hope we do not become a mall with no memory.
#18 – ME divides us.
--------------------
You divide us. Your professed philosophy is nothing more than a defense of the nation state at its heart. As a result you are a defender of ethnic cleansing. The two go hand in hand and that's just the name of the tune.
Sorry, I'm not buying in and you know that most of America isn't buying in either.
#16 - ME teaches that your ancestors' culture determines your identity and views. It thus diminishes freedom.
-----------------------
How?
Now let's talk honestly. What you are saying is that unless you are Jewish or a Protestant conservative then your history doesn't count for anything.
That's what you are saying and you really can't be surprised that you are rejected.
#9 – ME blinds us to real evils in the world. It says that since all cultures are equally worthy of praise, attempts to distinguish between cultures is irrational racism.
--------------------
Culturism blinds us to OUR OWN evils by positing a chosen or exceptional population.
Ducky,
I guess you're right. Anyone who says that the West has a culture and we should emphasize our unity is into ethnic cleansing. Perhaps just saying the West has a culture amounts to ethnic cleansing? Maybe just using the phrase "the West" does. Or perhaps just the idea that we should emphasize our unity is ethnic cleansing! GEEZ!!!! These days it is a short line from disagreeing with multiculturalism to Hitler.
If most of America rejected culturism, that would be fine. As it stands, they are only offered the option of multiculturalism. It would be good if they had a choice. Well that is if you do not agree with the sarcasm I wrote in the prior paragraph.
John
Ducky, we WERE 'exceptional' until the left took over. Get used to it.
ETHNIC CLEANSING? WHAT???????
As usual, Ducky the Persona shows up, hurls ridiculous accusations, makes no arguments, answers to criticisms. What a jerk.
John,
what a great blog you have!!
I've been reading the book and ingesting it slowly. Thanks so much.
This is good, thick, thought-provoking stuff. I love to see the good discussion. This is what we need.
Thanks again!!
I couldn't agree more that ME divides us.
Just on a personal note...growing up with so many of my friends being first generation Americans (their parents being from Mexico), we didn't think much of it. We spent time at each other's homes, ate each other's food, etc. I look around now at the ME, and I feel pulled-apart, separated, encouraged to stay in my circle of WASP folks (because that's how ME comes across).
It's sad that ME teaches us to see each other as skin color/race, nationality, instead of human beings. Am I right on this John?
Seems to me that ME promotes racism.
Thanks Pinky!!!
I'm against multiculturalism. The reason: I wish the Europeans had stayed away from the Americas. If you are so proud of YOUR western culture, you have no business appropriating others' land, and obliterating someone else's culture. The US has always abused Mexico since the arrival of the Europeans in the West. As a Mexican, I would have preferred to have lived among my own people, the Aztec, even if they did sacrifice hundreds of people. You arguments are ok..Now the you have pride in your Western culture, go home to your people in Europe, and stay there. But leave Mexican culture alone. By the way, we have Muslim problem in Mexico, your no the only one. Stop Complaining! :)
And while all you intellectuals are giving each other hand jobs for how smart you are Muhammed, Adolf, Cesar, or Kunta Kinte are cleaning their guns and ready to kill you.
It's difficult to COEXIST when someone is trying to kill you.
I don't know where or how you live. Judging by your intellect and probable college education it's nice. But from my perspective in the ghettos of Chicago it's difficult to believe any of your logic when my views are more visceral than yours.
golden goose
bape clothing
bape
fear of god clothing
nike kyrie 7
off white t shirt
off white hoodie
bapesta
kevin durant shoes
nike sb dunk low
Post a Comment