Culturism leans towards isolationism, but has a foreign policy. But. first culturism is situational and pragmatic. And reasonable culturists may disagree on roll back, containment or isolation. I will give specific culturist policies herein. We may disagree on particular situations. But, as a culturist, I hope you agree on the precepts.
First of all, if we wish our ideas to spread, and not contract, we need to be strong domestically. If people see us as an example to emulate, they will be attracted to our model. If they see us as a bastion of debt, crime and chaos, they will run from our example. We can and should have rallies to show our distaste for, for example, the treatment of women in Pakistan. But, before worrying about people adhering to a different culture in the Swat valley, we must worry about solvency in the West.
Interfering to impose values violates culturist ethics. If we are to interfere we have to recognize the importance of culture; some cultures are more compatible with western values than others. Japan had a high regard for education and a strong sense of duty. Our imposing democracy there has been somewhat successful. Still their culture is very different than ours. Iran is much less likely to become a progressive democracy. Latin America and Russia have teetering democracies. Not all attempts to spread our values meet equal resistance.
Not only compatibility, but relevance to us comes into play. Countries that are geographically and culturally farther away from us are a lower priority. We should be more worried about Greece than Afghanistan. Australia means more to us than Zimbabwe. While India and Pakistan are equidistant from us, India is closer ideologically. They deserve our moral support. Because sides and competition exist there is no “global community.” We have to prioritize our friends and western brethren.
If we are to interfere, it has to be on the basis of pragmatism. We cannot afford to take on more debt in order to try to convert Nigeria into a progressive, rights affirming nation. Nigeria is not so strategically important to us. Even responses to “humanitarian” crisis have to be decided on a culturist basis. Do we have the money or inclination to help tsunami victims or “human rights” violations in Muslim nations? Culturism is against sending “humanitarian” aid to people who hate us. Right now we cannot afford to. Our strength should be our first priority.
Having announced precepts, I will venture some specific foreign policy recommendations. We made a big culturist mistake creating Kosovo, a Muslim majority enclave, in central Europe. We should help Russia with its Muslim lined borders rather than antagonize her. Afghanistan is never going to be our friend. We should kill the 9-11 terrorists, but not give them aid. Western support for Gaza has emboldened Hamas. The ideal of ‘humanitarian aid’ should be heavily tempered by one that recognizes culture and competition. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. We should militarily destroy their nuclear facilities. But after that, culturism would predict failure in trying to nation build them into a progressive democracy. Besides we do not have the money for it. We have our own infrastructure to repair.
Lastly, culturism rejects the belief that there is a universal desire to be a free acting individual. Culturism not only rejects it metaphysically, but practically. Ruffians that want to bring a culture into bondage are often popular. Cultural diversity exists. If we find some regimes offensive, we can withhold trade, we can denounce their values on our street corners and in the UN. But we likely do not have the money to interfere. And, worse yet, remember that aggressive Islam may yet be able to topple us. Then the "universal desire to drive towards freedom" may only exist in forgotten neo-con dreams.
12 comments:
I think Japan is an interesting case study on how a culture actively adapted western traditions and values. Even the Japanese urge to colonize was merely a copy cat desire to be like other great western countries, hence their participation in WW2. The history of how Japan was forced to submit to western trade and their response is absolutely fascinating.
When the United States decided to split Kosovo off from Serbia and give it to the Albanians it set off riots throughout Serbia. The Serbians see Kosovo as the heartland of Serbia based on the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 where Serbs battled the Ottoman empire and lost. The battle has ever since been a source of great national patriotism for Serbs who see it is perhaps, on an American analogy, to the Alamo, or perhaps Bunker Hill, or Pearl Harbor. In response to the riots, Condoleeza Rice urged the angry Serbs to get over it. "I mean, after all, we're talking about something from 1389 - 1389! It's time to move forward" she said.
The Serbs could have replied that African-Americans should get over slavery.
Or that the south should get over the Civil War.
Or that Jews should get over the holocaust, or those at the Wailing Wall should get over the destruction of the temple, or that they should get over being slaves in Egypt.
Or that the 3rd world should get over imperialism.
Or that the United States should get over the American Revolution, or World War 2.
For all people, their history is their identity, it is what makes you who you are. There is no getting over history.
Japan has a cultural knack of beating their opponent at their own game. They pushed of Commodore Perry for long enough to build a military. But, that said, the reality on the ground is still vastly different than the US. Democracy is not the whole kit and kaboodle.
Women get paid less for the same government jobs in Japan. Also they are very racist. Fourth generation Koreans cannot get citizenship. To think that they are now dedicated to the freedom of the individual and rights is misleading.
Empedocles, I totally agree.
But in Serbia we should have noted that we had a muslim faction versus a christian faction. I am not saying that it is okay to drive Muslims out of Christian countries or worse. But getting the facts on the ground is often difficult. In many small violent squabbles we have no idea who is on what side or what is right or wrong. In this case, however, we should have erred on not setting up a Muslim state with a grudge.
I think, the seemingly culturally neutral battle of communism versus capitalism in the Cold War may have blinded us to cultural importance. Post 9-11, however, there is no excuse for this.
I agree John. And the Chinese have now embraced capitalism in their own unique way without the acknowledgment of human rights. So our culture is something more than just capitalism isn't it?
Yes Lex, I think so.
It is a huge hangover from the Cold War (now exploited by globalists) to say the definition of American is a free market capitalist. But republican Christian Enlightenment principles preceded the free - market claim (though economic independence was a big part).
People sell weapons to kill all who are free. This shows capitalist acts can have many ends. A Chinese ruled world would look much different. One thing we forget is how racist they are. Our vision of individual responsibility and importance in a democratic society with separation of church and state does not necessarily follow capitalism. In fact, capitalism can be quite brutal. And, in the end, their level of statism might beat ours.
We must be worthy of our freedoms to earn our freedoms. But, yes, diversity exists and we're in competition. They know it. I'm not sure we do.
Anyone paying attention has realized that our economic system has done more damage to us than Islam has.
One can be certain the world isn't waiting for us to export any ideas until we clean up this mess.
I wonder whether culturism accepts the premise that a great deal of western culture is the result of what we currently call "leftist" thought?
Ducky,
I seriously agree with you!!! I am NOT saying that Islam is not a serious threat. But our domestic economic situation does not inspire emulation. Before all else, rushes to save whomever, we must make sure that our own house is in order.
Per the second question, you'd have to be more specific. By "leftist" do you mean Marxist guerillas in Latin America? Do you mean Martin Luther's Protestant reformation?
Thanks, John
I mean equal rights and economic equality.
Movements such as the civil rights movement, womens rights, social democracy.
They have had a pretty substantial effect in the west but are not necessarily enthusiastically embraced by the right.
I still see the culturist idea as one that is closer to religious fundamentalism and therefore in conflict with a lot of western trends.
What a joke. Can Ducky be so clueless as to not realize that the so-called right claims to stand for equal rights and economic equality?
Ducky,
Economic equality at what price? I think that there is a spectrum between total free market, which stains unity, and socialism, which strains progress.
Franklin Giddings - an old school Columbia sociologist - also noted that progress leads to social distance and strain. This can break society via division. Diversity, he said, makes the whole fragmented and thus more fragile. It slows the speed you can go.
This is the sort of spectral analysis I would use when fine tuning the adjustment between fostering wealth and the antagonistic goal of fostering equality.
In terms of Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., he gets a heroes treatment as representing a modern incarnation of a western trajectory towards respecting individualism and potential. We probably interpret his message differently. But, the book culturism overtly appreciates his contributions to America.
Empedocles,
I was just thinking of you today my friend! I was wondering if you've read E.D. Hirsch's 'cultural literacy'? It has a lot to say about linguistics and common bonds. If you haven't, I think you'd enjoy it.
John
Economic equality at what price? I think that there is a spectrum between total free market, which stains unity, and socialism, which strains progress.
-----------------------
True enough. We should always be looking for a sensible middle.
However I think social democracy (which is NOT Democratic socialism) is going to reemerge after this latest disaster with unregulated capitalism.
Ducky,
I am not sure how you define social democracy, but it is interesting. The woman I am studying, Frances Kellor, tried to make political parties activist parties. She considered the voting for a candidate every four years to be insufficiently democratic.
In 1912 she started the Progressive National Service. It was designed to get people to agitate for reform under the leadership of the Progressive political party so that it would try to pursue its platform all the time and not just whip it out for elections.
One half of her organization educated people about problems and legislative proposals. The other half gave bills to politicians. The idea was that people would demand and politicians would implement the agenda of reformist sociologists.
Anyhow, that is more than you asked for!!
Thanks, John
Post a Comment