Technorati Profile
Culturism works!!! That was the message I took from Clare Lyons' Sex Among the Rablle - An intimate History of Gender and Power in the Age of Revolution, Philadelphia, 1730 - 1830. The intended take away message from this work is that pre-revolutionary Philadelphia's "pleasure culture" was shut down by patriarchy and quashed female liberation. But, inadvertently, from a culturist perspective it provided a very different set of lessons.
Bastardy or out-of-wedlock births, Lyons argues, were accepted in pre-revolutionary America's culture. She demonstrates this by showing that no punishment was attached to single mothers in poor houses as the organizers searched for the "fathers" and wrest support from them. Bastardy and prostitution being allowed gave women options and so made them more free from patriarchal restraint. Alas, she tells us, when levels soared to 6.6 percent, Quaker organizations such as "The Association of the District of Southwark for the suppression of Vice and Immorality" and the "Magdalen Society" were formed to combat women's freedom.
The punitive organization to suppress vice and immorality did not meet with success. But the Magdalen Society provided shelter for prostitutes who would reform and had many takers. The Guardians of the Poor, the group that sheltered pregnant single women, started taking a more punitive outlook. Men had to be identified for support, housing was limited, children could be made servants in other's homes to pay for the upkeep, and care was given in an alms house. In the meantime, public prostitution was driven indoors, the ideal of virtuous women was pushed, and print was somehow cleaned up. This combination of helpful, moral and punitive measures lovered the rate of out of wedlock children from 1 in 101 to 1 in 149 between 1814 and 1822!
Lyons paints this effort as punitive and mean. But it is hard to see why single motherhood is liberating. Prostitution was an additional choice for women. But would you see the wide proliferation of whorehouses as good for women? If they were in your neighborhood, and you had kids, wouldn't you move out or fight them? Lyons' documentation of the widespread venereal disease did not sound too pleasant or liberating. Single mothererhood and childhood poverty go hand in hand. Lyons' focusing on personal pleasure and ignoring of the needs of children and society are symptomatic of the pervasive individualism that necessitates culturism.
If we were to lower the out of wedlock rate by 50% it would help our society and children. But Lyons is right, it would be at the expense of lessening public support for the "pleasure culture." Reducing out-of-wedlock births would require affirming that we consider it an undesirable practice and applying modern versions of our culturist traditions. The question is if we still have the will, legal right, desire and spine to be at all culturist or if individual rights and pleasure now trump any social considerations and assertions. Despite herself, Lyons shows that the Founding Fathers created a system of self-governance, not of anarchy; she showed that we have a long culturist tradition and it works!
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Long Panic Blog with Foreign Policy Considerations
Technorati Profile
Culturism will temporarily take longer for Amazon to ship when you order it. This perhaps boring blog will tell you all the gory details concerning why that is so. If you want a shorter and more controversial blog go to the one below this now!!!
The delay results from a last minute panic over the definition of culturism. In writing the book, it didn’t occur to me that my original idea had taken on another nuance: that of having a right to define and defend majority cultures. I mentally tossed and turned for days over whether or not to add this right to the philosophy and practice of culturism already in the definition.
It meant that I really had to ask myself if I believe in culturism all the way down. I got to this question by way of the use of the word “right” in the possible definition amendment. As culturism, the book, explains, rights only exist in countries that believe in them and can afford them. Having “right” in the definition seemed to undermine this nuance. It seemed to create a metaphysical obligation. The problem is that it implies that there is a universal value that we have to defend. That is very unculturistic.
Worse, this meant that the definition gave sanction to some completely unsavory behaviors. If there is a right to defend cultural majority behaviors we have to say that at some level honor killings and female genital mutilation have the sanction of culturist rights. This impass caused deep soul searching and remembering of arguments.
In fact, the people who do honor killings and female genital mutilation think they are upholding morality. We have fundamentally different morality. As a secular progressive American, I cannot stomach such things. But that is due to my cultural programming. YES! I reaffirm that they have a right to do such things IN THEIR COUNTRY. NOT HERE. Yes, deep down and all the way, I recognize that there are others, there is diversity, and no one has a metaphysical hold on who is right.
But saying they have a right to defend such behaviors still means that I could be called upon to defend them. This brings us to international relations and Iraq. Does giving people the right to defend and define themselves give aid and comfort to those who are currently attacking our soldiers in Iraq? For many hours I thought about whether I could write anything that implied that I would ever root for our enemies or against the U.S. Mercifully, two solutions came to mind.
First of all, for clarification, we are not at war in Iraq, we are on a peace keeping mission. They are bombing each other and we are trying to stop them. That said, honestly, I do not hold up much hope of Iraq’s stabilizing as a democracy. Yes, to be honest, I think isolation is the culturist way and we should not have gone. I am willing to try and hope that I am wrong. But, as a culturist, I feel they hold too many values that run counter to the ideal of peaceful co-existence for it to work. If I pull punches on that now it won't help us to understand this culturist lesson in the future.
Secondly, my saying you have a right to define and defend yourself does NOT MEAN YOU DO NOT KICK ASS. If part of your culture is preparing and carrying out Jihad, our defining and defending ourselves means stopping you. Also, stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is part of defining and defending ourselves. Nukes are not a part of Iranian culture. But, here the culturist message is that a strike (ala Israel on Syria) is enough. We do not need to go and reform your culture. Apart from having nukes and training camps, culturism says go ahead and do what you will with your country.
Pragmatism was the final reason I decided to include the right to define and defend yourself in the definition of culturism. Other countries already believe they have a right to define and defend themselves. We do not. Ultimately, I am not concerned with what is happening internationally. I worry about America and other Western nations. We, of all cultures and nations, need to realize that we have a right to define and defend ourselves. This book is for America. We will be safer if we have a value that makes us pause before we try to reform others AND makes it clear to us that we have a right to define and defend ourseles! Nuances concerning rights aside, changing the definition serves a pragmatic purpose.
Anyhow, that is why Amazon shipping now takes longer. When the book arrives it will have the newest version of the definition and - hopefully - have more impact.
Culturism will temporarily take longer for Amazon to ship when you order it. This perhaps boring blog will tell you all the gory details concerning why that is so. If you want a shorter and more controversial blog go to the one below this now!!!
The delay results from a last minute panic over the definition of culturism. In writing the book, it didn’t occur to me that my original idea had taken on another nuance: that of having a right to define and defend majority cultures. I mentally tossed and turned for days over whether or not to add this right to the philosophy and practice of culturism already in the definition.
It meant that I really had to ask myself if I believe in culturism all the way down. I got to this question by way of the use of the word “right” in the possible definition amendment. As culturism, the book, explains, rights only exist in countries that believe in them and can afford them. Having “right” in the definition seemed to undermine this nuance. It seemed to create a metaphysical obligation. The problem is that it implies that there is a universal value that we have to defend. That is very unculturistic.
Worse, this meant that the definition gave sanction to some completely unsavory behaviors. If there is a right to defend cultural majority behaviors we have to say that at some level honor killings and female genital mutilation have the sanction of culturist rights. This impass caused deep soul searching and remembering of arguments.
In fact, the people who do honor killings and female genital mutilation think they are upholding morality. We have fundamentally different morality. As a secular progressive American, I cannot stomach such things. But that is due to my cultural programming. YES! I reaffirm that they have a right to do such things IN THEIR COUNTRY. NOT HERE. Yes, deep down and all the way, I recognize that there are others, there is diversity, and no one has a metaphysical hold on who is right.
But saying they have a right to defend such behaviors still means that I could be called upon to defend them. This brings us to international relations and Iraq. Does giving people the right to defend and define themselves give aid and comfort to those who are currently attacking our soldiers in Iraq? For many hours I thought about whether I could write anything that implied that I would ever root for our enemies or against the U.S. Mercifully, two solutions came to mind.
First of all, for clarification, we are not at war in Iraq, we are on a peace keeping mission. They are bombing each other and we are trying to stop them. That said, honestly, I do not hold up much hope of Iraq’s stabilizing as a democracy. Yes, to be honest, I think isolation is the culturist way and we should not have gone. I am willing to try and hope that I am wrong. But, as a culturist, I feel they hold too many values that run counter to the ideal of peaceful co-existence for it to work. If I pull punches on that now it won't help us to understand this culturist lesson in the future.
Secondly, my saying you have a right to define and defend yourself does NOT MEAN YOU DO NOT KICK ASS. If part of your culture is preparing and carrying out Jihad, our defining and defending ourselves means stopping you. Also, stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is part of defining and defending ourselves. Nukes are not a part of Iranian culture. But, here the culturist message is that a strike (ala Israel on Syria) is enough. We do not need to go and reform your culture. Apart from having nukes and training camps, culturism says go ahead and do what you will with your country.
Pragmatism was the final reason I decided to include the right to define and defend yourself in the definition of culturism. Other countries already believe they have a right to define and defend themselves. We do not. Ultimately, I am not concerned with what is happening internationally. I worry about America and other Western nations. We, of all cultures and nations, need to realize that we have a right to define and defend ourselves. This book is for America. We will be safer if we have a value that makes us pause before we try to reform others AND makes it clear to us that we have a right to define and defend ourseles! Nuances concerning rights aside, changing the definition serves a pragmatic purpose.
Anyhow, that is why Amazon shipping now takes longer. When the book arrives it will have the newest version of the definition and - hopefully - have more impact.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
What is a good American?
Technorati Profile
In speaking about culturism I’m asked what is an American – what is the majority culture of which you speak? This question is, of course, hard to answer because we are not easily defined, like other countries, by religion or race. We have a shared history and ideals and a shared future. But beyond that you have so many options that it boggles the mind: Gay ministers are good Americans and conservative gun proponents are good Americans too. We are a nation full of liberty and spectrum. But some general answers come to mind.
First of all, to be an American is to want what is best for America. This sounds like the utterance of a politician, but we have forgotten it. If you violate our laws and only complain about America you may not be a good American. Like being a Lakers fan, being a good American requires love. Fans can complain about their team –when will Kobe get some serious help and Mitch Kupchak leave – but at heart you have to really want your team to win.
The analogy with sports breaks down at the level of action. As a Lakers fan I am inactive. As an American, I speak with people about what I think will make America better. I attend rallies. But more than that, I try to improve myself and be a really good person in order to do credit to my grandfathers and our forefathers and our traditions. I work hard at what I do and take my work and role in America seriously.
If we need to change our institutions for your cultural group you are probably not a good candidate to be an American. For example, Muslims are currently challenging our basic holidays – holiday – build footbaths in quasi public institutions; change our photo identification laws and who gets served in markets and taxis. This is a bad sign. People are not fitting in. They are not conforming and in an era where individualism has eclipsed culturism, we are caving. We have to remember we have a culture and it requires some accommodation. If you are too inflexible to meld to our ways, you are probably a bad candidate for being an American.
Immigration that does not recognize the rule of law is another area of concern. Again, if we need to change our institutions to fit you, it is a sign you are not fitting in. Many immigrants believe that we need to dismantle our border laws to suit them. It is not clear that they want this because they think it is best for America. When people do not pay taxes once they are here or overuse public services and send money “home” it is not clear that they have America’s best interest at heart. A good American has upholding American institutions, fiscal stability and reputation as a goal.
This gets us to our last category. If you are a businessperson who puts profit above nation, you are a bad American. Divesting from America and running sweatshops domestically undermines our tax base. It enervates the middle class – which is a foundation of liberal democracies. If this country devolves into class hostility and violence – ala Mexico – we will lose liberties. Where will the businessman then live and enjoy a good quality of life? Do you really want to be secluded from America? Would it not feel better to be a part of an America that is strong free and something you can proud of? When your conscience is so checked out that you think porn on television and gangster rap on radio and no social questions arise, you have forgotten that we are all in this together. And remembering that we are all in this together is a big part of being a good American.
In speaking about culturism I’m asked what is an American – what is the majority culture of which you speak? This question is, of course, hard to answer because we are not easily defined, like other countries, by religion or race. We have a shared history and ideals and a shared future. But beyond that you have so many options that it boggles the mind: Gay ministers are good Americans and conservative gun proponents are good Americans too. We are a nation full of liberty and spectrum. But some general answers come to mind.
First of all, to be an American is to want what is best for America. This sounds like the utterance of a politician, but we have forgotten it. If you violate our laws and only complain about America you may not be a good American. Like being a Lakers fan, being a good American requires love. Fans can complain about their team –when will Kobe get some serious help and Mitch Kupchak leave – but at heart you have to really want your team to win.
The analogy with sports breaks down at the level of action. As a Lakers fan I am inactive. As an American, I speak with people about what I think will make America better. I attend rallies. But more than that, I try to improve myself and be a really good person in order to do credit to my grandfathers and our forefathers and our traditions. I work hard at what I do and take my work and role in America seriously.
If we need to change our institutions for your cultural group you are probably not a good candidate to be an American. For example, Muslims are currently challenging our basic holidays – holiday – build footbaths in quasi public institutions; change our photo identification laws and who gets served in markets and taxis. This is a bad sign. People are not fitting in. They are not conforming and in an era where individualism has eclipsed culturism, we are caving. We have to remember we have a culture and it requires some accommodation. If you are too inflexible to meld to our ways, you are probably a bad candidate for being an American.
Immigration that does not recognize the rule of law is another area of concern. Again, if we need to change our institutions to fit you, it is a sign you are not fitting in. Many immigrants believe that we need to dismantle our border laws to suit them. It is not clear that they want this because they think it is best for America. When people do not pay taxes once they are here or overuse public services and send money “home” it is not clear that they have America’s best interest at heart. A good American has upholding American institutions, fiscal stability and reputation as a goal.
This gets us to our last category. If you are a businessperson who puts profit above nation, you are a bad American. Divesting from America and running sweatshops domestically undermines our tax base. It enervates the middle class – which is a foundation of liberal democracies. If this country devolves into class hostility and violence – ala Mexico – we will lose liberties. Where will the businessman then live and enjoy a good quality of life? Do you really want to be secluded from America? Would it not feel better to be a part of an America that is strong free and something you can proud of? When your conscience is so checked out that you think porn on television and gangster rap on radio and no social questions arise, you have forgotten that we are all in this together. And remembering that we are all in this together is a big part of being a good American.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Happy Culturist Columbus Day!!
Technorati Profile
Columbus day is a very appropriate and interesting day for culturism to finally be available on amazon. That’s right!! You can now buy culturism on Amazon!! Culturism’s availability is important because it very directly addresses the Columbus Day / Indigenous People’s Day controversy. Some people, 83 of whom got arrested at Denver’s Columbus Day Parade, want to remind us of what a disaster Columbus’ arrival was for Native Americans by renaming the holiday. As such, they have a point. But this point hides their larger agenda: equating all Western Civilization with genocide and terror. This hidden agenda requires a much closer and accurate look at history and anthropology.
Columbus was ruthless and brought a wave of violent conquistadores in his wake. But his settlement in the Caribbean and the conquistadors’ incursions into what became Latin America were very different than the British incursion nearly one hundred years later. The British derived much of their self-worth from contrasting themselves with the “Black Legend” and cruelty of the Spanish conquest. Rather than coming to plunder, rule and leave, the early Americans came to stay and live. So not all Westerners were equally villainous. Furthermore, nearly all of the “genocide” that happened resulted from the unintentional spread of diseases.
But the largest readjustment in the thinking the protesters need has to do with their understanding of indigenous peoples. Their righteous stance comes from their imagining the natives in the iconic mold of the noble savage. As chapter four of culturism details, natives the world around were largely brutal, superstitious, and violent. Somewhat near Denver, the Anastazi Indians had deforested and ruined the environment as well as turning to warfare and cannibalism for sustenance before Columbus arrived. A major reason the conquistadores in Columbus’ wake were able to conquer so many folks with so many men is that indigenous people were tired of being hunted for human sacrifice by the Aztecs. The Aztecs and Mayans hunted tens of thousands, ate their flesh and wore their skins!!! The British settlers largely survived by providing natives protection from each other. Environmental ruin, starvation, and warfare were widespread before Columbus arrived.
Yes, indigenous people sustained damage due to Western incursion. But here we should, again, remember the long sweep of context. “Indigenous peoples” also includes Africans. Our 300 years of slave trading was an extension of “indigenous” Islamic slave trading that went on for over 1000 years. That slavery was larger in scale and resulted in fewer survivors. Native Americans had slaves too. America, England and Western Civ are not unique for having had slavery; we are unique for having stomped it out. Previous to Western civilization 25% of indigenous peoples died violent deaths. Even in our previous century only 1.5 % of males died in battle. Very few people die in war now. Certainly people died at the hands of European expansion. But they died in greater numbers before and have subsequently had the benefit of living in a peaceful world.
Culturism does not judge cultures. If you ask people that practice female genital mutilation they will, whether your Western ears believe it or not, tell you it is a good thing. Human sacrifice and constant warfare likely give life a great sense of gusto that we fail to appreciate. But if the protesters for Indigenous Peoples do not like war, early death due to disease, starvation, human sacrifice and slavery they have imbibed Western values. They should remember that many indigenous peoples today kill for God, engage in slavery, hang homosexuals, denigrate freedom of conscience and commit honor killings. The values these protesters revere are Western, not indigenous. They should join all Western cultures in applying Western standards of judgment to Columbus. Then they should celebrate the spread of Western values they embrace and celebrate Western cultures’ spread by buying culturism on Amazon right now!
Columbus day is a very appropriate and interesting day for culturism to finally be available on amazon. That’s right!! You can now buy culturism on Amazon!! Culturism’s availability is important because it very directly addresses the Columbus Day / Indigenous People’s Day controversy. Some people, 83 of whom got arrested at Denver’s Columbus Day Parade, want to remind us of what a disaster Columbus’ arrival was for Native Americans by renaming the holiday. As such, they have a point. But this point hides their larger agenda: equating all Western Civilization with genocide and terror. This hidden agenda requires a much closer and accurate look at history and anthropology.
Columbus was ruthless and brought a wave of violent conquistadores in his wake. But his settlement in the Caribbean and the conquistadors’ incursions into what became Latin America were very different than the British incursion nearly one hundred years later. The British derived much of their self-worth from contrasting themselves with the “Black Legend” and cruelty of the Spanish conquest. Rather than coming to plunder, rule and leave, the early Americans came to stay and live. So not all Westerners were equally villainous. Furthermore, nearly all of the “genocide” that happened resulted from the unintentional spread of diseases.
But the largest readjustment in the thinking the protesters need has to do with their understanding of indigenous peoples. Their righteous stance comes from their imagining the natives in the iconic mold of the noble savage. As chapter four of culturism details, natives the world around were largely brutal, superstitious, and violent. Somewhat near Denver, the Anastazi Indians had deforested and ruined the environment as well as turning to warfare and cannibalism for sustenance before Columbus arrived. A major reason the conquistadores in Columbus’ wake were able to conquer so many folks with so many men is that indigenous people were tired of being hunted for human sacrifice by the Aztecs. The Aztecs and Mayans hunted tens of thousands, ate their flesh and wore their skins!!! The British settlers largely survived by providing natives protection from each other. Environmental ruin, starvation, and warfare were widespread before Columbus arrived.
Yes, indigenous people sustained damage due to Western incursion. But here we should, again, remember the long sweep of context. “Indigenous peoples” also includes Africans. Our 300 years of slave trading was an extension of “indigenous” Islamic slave trading that went on for over 1000 years. That slavery was larger in scale and resulted in fewer survivors. Native Americans had slaves too. America, England and Western Civ are not unique for having had slavery; we are unique for having stomped it out. Previous to Western civilization 25% of indigenous peoples died violent deaths. Even in our previous century only 1.5 % of males died in battle. Very few people die in war now. Certainly people died at the hands of European expansion. But they died in greater numbers before and have subsequently had the benefit of living in a peaceful world.
Culturism does not judge cultures. If you ask people that practice female genital mutilation they will, whether your Western ears believe it or not, tell you it is a good thing. Human sacrifice and constant warfare likely give life a great sense of gusto that we fail to appreciate. But if the protesters for Indigenous Peoples do not like war, early death due to disease, starvation, human sacrifice and slavery they have imbibed Western values. They should remember that many indigenous peoples today kill for God, engage in slavery, hang homosexuals, denigrate freedom of conscience and commit honor killings. The values these protesters revere are Western, not indigenous. They should join all Western cultures in applying Western standards of judgment to Columbus. Then they should celebrate the spread of Western values they embrace and celebrate Western cultures’ spread by buying culturism on Amazon right now!
Friday, September 21, 2007
Great Western Art
Technorati Profile
Yesterday was amazing. I got free tickets to go see the final rehearsal of Lucia di Lammermoor at New York’s Metropolitan Opera. Then, after my daily stay in the library’s basement, I went to a discussion group on Aeschylus Oresteia. When there I got a call and free tickets to go see A Chorus Line on Broadway. Wow!!
I tried hard to think of what the common culturist lesson was in these pieces. They are very different. Lucia di Lammermoor depicts an over-the-top struggle of love against an arranged marriage and includes a famous “mad scene” before bodies populate the stage. A Chorus Line focuses on the lives of much more believable individuals who are struggling to get work in a – you guessed it – chorus line. And the Oresteia concerns the birth of justice in a dilemma in which one must avenge their father’s murder, but the mother killed the father. Finding a commonality between all of these was hard.
One can see the concerns as increasingly petty. The Greek Oresteia concerns huge issues, fate, the death of the age of the Gods, the Birth of justice, male versus female. The Opera had huge love, and the Chorus line was just about average individuals. But, saying this is a progression or a declension is hard. The Opera had unsurpassed music and virtuosity, but its theme was trite. No one falls in love and kills themselves like that. I learned more from the low brow musical. Its all down hill from Greek plays in terms of death and depth. But the musical about the common man speaks to me. One could not say progress or declension is a theme across the ages of Western theater.
Morality was another angle I considered. In the Orestia, Orestes, must revenge his fathers death. But his father killed his sister so that the Trojan War would go well. He was also trapped in a lose – lose situation. A strong sense of duty motivates the characters. The Opera characters rebel out of selfish love and the Chorus Line folk only think of their own passion when it comes to job choice. But, then again, our being able to do what makes sense to us is a virtue. If there is a commonality, it is people raging against their situations and trying to live according to truths – be they individual or duty centered. From a long Western perspective, the individualistic passionate dancers are not less than the murdering Greek’s or the Opera’s characters who are also dedication to love.
Pride. The culturist meaning I came up with is pride in our artistic accomplishments. We have a long and variegated history of theater in the West. These are enigmatic, entertaining, and inspiring pieces. Others have their ritual prayers and stereotypical crafts – gotta love those – but our artistic striving from the Greeks to Broadway has produced some gems to be proud of. These are consciously contrived expressions of the individual vision with high levels of artistic mastery. Those who say the Western tradition is just about materialism and acquisition, should know about the Western creation of the individual and enshrinement of his conscience. They should know that we are proud of the material wealth our capitalists and scientists have brought to the world. But those of you who still have doubts about our greatness, should really go see some fabulous theater today!!
Yesterday was amazing. I got free tickets to go see the final rehearsal of Lucia di Lammermoor at New York’s Metropolitan Opera. Then, after my daily stay in the library’s basement, I went to a discussion group on Aeschylus Oresteia. When there I got a call and free tickets to go see A Chorus Line on Broadway. Wow!!
I tried hard to think of what the common culturist lesson was in these pieces. They are very different. Lucia di Lammermoor depicts an over-the-top struggle of love against an arranged marriage and includes a famous “mad scene” before bodies populate the stage. A Chorus Line focuses on the lives of much more believable individuals who are struggling to get work in a – you guessed it – chorus line. And the Oresteia concerns the birth of justice in a dilemma in which one must avenge their father’s murder, but the mother killed the father. Finding a commonality between all of these was hard.
One can see the concerns as increasingly petty. The Greek Oresteia concerns huge issues, fate, the death of the age of the Gods, the Birth of justice, male versus female. The Opera had huge love, and the Chorus line was just about average individuals. But, saying this is a progression or a declension is hard. The Opera had unsurpassed music and virtuosity, but its theme was trite. No one falls in love and kills themselves like that. I learned more from the low brow musical. Its all down hill from Greek plays in terms of death and depth. But the musical about the common man speaks to me. One could not say progress or declension is a theme across the ages of Western theater.
Morality was another angle I considered. In the Orestia, Orestes, must revenge his fathers death. But his father killed his sister so that the Trojan War would go well. He was also trapped in a lose – lose situation. A strong sense of duty motivates the characters. The Opera characters rebel out of selfish love and the Chorus Line folk only think of their own passion when it comes to job choice. But, then again, our being able to do what makes sense to us is a virtue. If there is a commonality, it is people raging against their situations and trying to live according to truths – be they individual or duty centered. From a long Western perspective, the individualistic passionate dancers are not less than the murdering Greek’s or the Opera’s characters who are also dedication to love.
Pride. The culturist meaning I came up with is pride in our artistic accomplishments. We have a long and variegated history of theater in the West. These are enigmatic, entertaining, and inspiring pieces. Others have their ritual prayers and stereotypical crafts – gotta love those – but our artistic striving from the Greeks to Broadway has produced some gems to be proud of. These are consciously contrived expressions of the individual vision with high levels of artistic mastery. Those who say the Western tradition is just about materialism and acquisition, should know about the Western creation of the individual and enshrinement of his conscience. They should know that we are proud of the material wealth our capitalists and scientists have brought to the world. But those of you who still have doubts about our greatness, should really go see some fabulous theater today!!
Monday, September 10, 2007
Muslim Parade and Immigration History
Technorati Profile
Recently I joined other concerned Americans at the Muslim Parade here in NYC. I found out about it throuh Atlas of atlasshrugs.com. It was put together by americansagainsthate.org and the stop the maddrassas coalition had considerable numbers of people there. But as I was interviewed I came to realize that I was not clear as to why I was there. I came with no group and represented no one other than an average American - myself.
As interviews rolled on, I became more focused. One interview which was aired shows this. It can be found at http://www.1010wins.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=990247 (though they misidentify me as Lee, not Johnny P.). As the interview shows the main positive message I could get out was that we should stop muslim immigration now. As in Culturism, I use the pragmatic reasoning that we stand to lose very much, by way of terrorism, and to gain very little by continued Muslim immigration. More philosophically, I mentioned that we are not under any moral obligation to let them into our country. As evidence I noted that they do not let us into theirs. We have a right and a duty to make cost - benefit calculations when deciding policy. We are not bound by international rights which do not exist.
This, in fact, is our tradition. Interviewers asked if we are not defined as the land that never discriminates and always allows immigrants. People do not know basic history. In 1924 the Johnson - Reed Immigration Act basically stopped immigration to this country until 1965. And it did so on the basis of Culturist discrimination. From the late 19th century until the 1924 Act there were terrorist bombings across America. The Palmer raids to deport dangerous aliens happened because two bombs were ignited infront of Attorney General Palmer's home, for example. Everyone knew that the Anarchist and terrorist bombing was done by Eastern and Southern Europeans (Jews and Italians). The cultures that they carried over had revolution in their rhetoric. And so the 1924 Act targeted those populations. It said immigration numbers would reflect the percentage of the population in 1890 (going back to a more Western European centered demography).
So this is not the first time we have encountered a culture immigrating that condoned terrorism. Again, not all did - my great grandparents for example - but the calculation was made as to what we gained by allowing more in versus what we risked by keeping them out. We decided our nation was full enough and pulled up the drawbridge. After that - lo and behold - people assimilated and terrorism (even during the Great Depression) disappeared. Those who do not remember the past do not learn lessons from their past. Those who control the past, Orwell said, control the future. We must remember our basic history to know what our traditions and options are. For the time being our tradition says stop Islamic immigration until we can document that the number of attempted terrorist attacks a year on our soil have stabilized at zero.
Recently I joined other concerned Americans at the Muslim Parade here in NYC. I found out about it throuh Atlas of atlasshrugs.com. It was put together by americansagainsthate.org and the stop the maddrassas coalition had considerable numbers of people there. But as I was interviewed I came to realize that I was not clear as to why I was there. I came with no group and represented no one other than an average American - myself.
As interviews rolled on, I became more focused. One interview which was aired shows this. It can be found at http://www.1010wins.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=990247 (though they misidentify me as Lee, not Johnny P.). As the interview shows the main positive message I could get out was that we should stop muslim immigration now. As in Culturism, I use the pragmatic reasoning that we stand to lose very much, by way of terrorism, and to gain very little by continued Muslim immigration. More philosophically, I mentioned that we are not under any moral obligation to let them into our country. As evidence I noted that they do not let us into theirs. We have a right and a duty to make cost - benefit calculations when deciding policy. We are not bound by international rights which do not exist.
This, in fact, is our tradition. Interviewers asked if we are not defined as the land that never discriminates and always allows immigrants. People do not know basic history. In 1924 the Johnson - Reed Immigration Act basically stopped immigration to this country until 1965. And it did so on the basis of Culturist discrimination. From the late 19th century until the 1924 Act there were terrorist bombings across America. The Palmer raids to deport dangerous aliens happened because two bombs were ignited infront of Attorney General Palmer's home, for example. Everyone knew that the Anarchist and terrorist bombing was done by Eastern and Southern Europeans (Jews and Italians). The cultures that they carried over had revolution in their rhetoric. And so the 1924 Act targeted those populations. It said immigration numbers would reflect the percentage of the population in 1890 (going back to a more Western European centered demography).
So this is not the first time we have encountered a culture immigrating that condoned terrorism. Again, not all did - my great grandparents for example - but the calculation was made as to what we gained by allowing more in versus what we risked by keeping them out. We decided our nation was full enough and pulled up the drawbridge. After that - lo and behold - people assimilated and terrorism (even during the Great Depression) disappeared. Those who do not remember the past do not learn lessons from their past. Those who control the past, Orwell said, control the future. We must remember our basic history to know what our traditions and options are. For the time being our tradition says stop Islamic immigration until we can document that the number of attempted terrorist attacks a year on our soil have stabilized at zero.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Atlas, Tattoos, and Football
Technorati Profile
Today, the fabulous Pamela "Atlas" Geller had Diana West as a radio guest. West's book, The Death of the Grown-Up,says our civilization is endangered by a lack of a mature outlook. In the interview she pointed to the higher education opportunities for the 1960s kids and their allowances causing marketing to be aimed at them creating a rise in the power of youth. She also, intriguingly, indicated that Hitler's shadow discredited authority. They also talked for a long time about our lack of ability to stomach bad news in Iraq and our inability to stand up to Islam. West's interpretations and their conversations were fascinating.
On hold, I wanted to pop off two of my wilder culturist ideas. People may agree with the philosophy of culturism without endorsing a particular policy. And some fun points can serve as learning prompts. The first fun observation I wanted to anonymously note was that the military is not the only anomaly of machoness in our country. Professional sports are too. When Michael Vick and others get caught doing immoral acts, when basketball players cuss or fight, they are suspended. The leagues take having role models and a reputation seriously. I would love it if public media [not private] would suspend any publicity or mention of celebrities that get caught with drugs. This would create an island of sane media for kids to watch. It would also show that we take morals seriously. Professional sports do not want to be seen as a collection of uncivilized thugs, neither should the United States.
My second possibly extreme comment concerned my pet peeve. I live on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Nearly everyone here has tattoos on their hands, arms, and faces. If anything shows immaturity it is the view that you want to exclude yourself from any high level, non-artistic, gainful pursuit. It not only limits your potential, but says that you are convinced that you will not change or develop as you age; at sixty you will still want the same images on your body. Were these tough posers to face war they would likely melt. These hipsters are not tough, or impressive, they are immature, overgrown children pretending to live an adolescent dream. But I do not mean to judge!
My proposal to remedy this is to severely punish those who give tattoos to people under 35. When you are 18 you often haven't even paid rent. You are not mature enough to make such a long-term decision. Though individuals have rights, we have a cultural right to have a culture that nurtures positive behaviors, that does not corrupt our impressionable young. You have a right to positive acts, not to irresponsibility, to liberty, not to license. Children of 18 are not mature enough to have no cultural guidance from any but other 18 year olds. West would tell you that we need to be mature and macho enough to tell children what to do.
Culturism the book - not to get to deep here - tells us that rights require a functioning society with a sense of responsibility. If our society falls due to irresponsibility rights will not continue to result from some metaphysical guarentee. Sustaining real freedom requires the mature effort that creates a functioning society; pretending you are tough is not enough. A nation of children would fall quickly. When we abdicate our resopnsibility to teach such truths we are complicit in our collective erosion.
My two solutions, kicking bad people off public airwaves and raising the age of tattoo rights, might offend some people. They would be right to note that we must be concerned with the protection of free speech. But we cannot always let the evoking of absolute rights undermine democracy and our sense of responsibility. Free speech does not mean unqualified rights to public airwaves and space. Those affected are free to vote against such laws (even at 18 since we capitulated to the Sixtees generation rather than standing up to it on that count). These suggestions might not do well in our current cultural climate. But, West and Atlas are right. Not having the spine needed to put forth unpopular suggestions does bode well for us.
Today, the fabulous Pamela "Atlas" Geller had Diana West as a radio guest. West's book, The Death of the Grown-Up,says our civilization is endangered by a lack of a mature outlook. In the interview she pointed to the higher education opportunities for the 1960s kids and their allowances causing marketing to be aimed at them creating a rise in the power of youth. She also, intriguingly, indicated that Hitler's shadow discredited authority. They also talked for a long time about our lack of ability to stomach bad news in Iraq and our inability to stand up to Islam. West's interpretations and their conversations were fascinating.
On hold, I wanted to pop off two of my wilder culturist ideas. People may agree with the philosophy of culturism without endorsing a particular policy. And some fun points can serve as learning prompts. The first fun observation I wanted to anonymously note was that the military is not the only anomaly of machoness in our country. Professional sports are too. When Michael Vick and others get caught doing immoral acts, when basketball players cuss or fight, they are suspended. The leagues take having role models and a reputation seriously. I would love it if public media [not private] would suspend any publicity or mention of celebrities that get caught with drugs. This would create an island of sane media for kids to watch. It would also show that we take morals seriously. Professional sports do not want to be seen as a collection of uncivilized thugs, neither should the United States.
My second possibly extreme comment concerned my pet peeve. I live on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Nearly everyone here has tattoos on their hands, arms, and faces. If anything shows immaturity it is the view that you want to exclude yourself from any high level, non-artistic, gainful pursuit. It not only limits your potential, but says that you are convinced that you will not change or develop as you age; at sixty you will still want the same images on your body. Were these tough posers to face war they would likely melt. These hipsters are not tough, or impressive, they are immature, overgrown children pretending to live an adolescent dream. But I do not mean to judge!
My proposal to remedy this is to severely punish those who give tattoos to people under 35. When you are 18 you often haven't even paid rent. You are not mature enough to make such a long-term decision. Though individuals have rights, we have a cultural right to have a culture that nurtures positive behaviors, that does not corrupt our impressionable young. You have a right to positive acts, not to irresponsibility, to liberty, not to license. Children of 18 are not mature enough to have no cultural guidance from any but other 18 year olds. West would tell you that we need to be mature and macho enough to tell children what to do.
Culturism the book - not to get to deep here - tells us that rights require a functioning society with a sense of responsibility. If our society falls due to irresponsibility rights will not continue to result from some metaphysical guarentee. Sustaining real freedom requires the mature effort that creates a functioning society; pretending you are tough is not enough. A nation of children would fall quickly. When we abdicate our resopnsibility to teach such truths we are complicit in our collective erosion.
My two solutions, kicking bad people off public airwaves and raising the age of tattoo rights, might offend some people. They would be right to note that we must be concerned with the protection of free speech. But we cannot always let the evoking of absolute rights undermine democracy and our sense of responsibility. Free speech does not mean unqualified rights to public airwaves and space. Those affected are free to vote against such laws (even at 18 since we capitulated to the Sixtees generation rather than standing up to it on that count). These suggestions might not do well in our current cultural climate. But, West and Atlas are right. Not having the spine needed to put forth unpopular suggestions does bode well for us.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Disagreement with Mr. Pipes
Technorati Profile
I hate to disagree with someone I respect as much as Mr. Pipes, but alas in the interest of illustrating a few points . . .
The article of his with which I take exception concerns Saudi Arabia's airline, Saudia. Its website warns potential passengers that no religious relics are allowed in the Saudi Kingdom. Mr. Pipes rejects, correctly, banning religious items in this country. He then suggests that we ban their airline.
Mr. Pipes and I agree that Saudi Arabia represents a peculiar and different civilization. I hope we also agree that Western civilization is also peculiar and different. Neither can be said to be the best or the future winner in the battle for survival.
What Saudi Arabia allows into their country is none of our business. If they want to only wear red and walk backwards, that is their privilege as a sovereign nation. The idea that we must make them behave like us is based on the idea that Western culture is or should be the default of the world. Even if it should be, it isn't. We must learn to accept that. Our interference in other cultures, our attempts to remake them in our image, will likely lead to failure and resentment.
While they are them, we are us (what a sentence!). The West is a distinctive and unique group of cultures. America also has distinctive traditions. While we cannot ban mosques, we must recognize that they are a threat to our separation of church and state, because there is no separation (witness Saudi Arabia) between mosque and state. While Saudi Arabia has a right to define itself, we have a right and duty to define ourselves.
To this end, we should immediately ban Saudi Monies from coming into America for the purpose of building mosques and funding advocacy groups. We can welcome investment. This is culturally neutral. But mosques are not in the Western tradition. We have 1400 years of war with Islam. Their attempts to overtake Europe being repelled on September 11th, 1683 is not so far away that we can again allow the creation of Islamic centers in Western lands. Just as we have no universal right to bring crosses into their lands, they do not have a universal right to fund culturally aggressive programs in our land. The problem with assertions of universal rights and rejecting Saudi Arabia's right to define and defend itself is that it undermines the same rights for us. Cultural rights of self-determination should be respected.
Two culturist principles are herein clarified. One is that diversity exists and will exist. The details about Wahhabi supremicist groups in his article should scare us and alert us to the fact that not all peoples are Westerners or Americans. The other culturist principle is that Saudi Arabia, as well as most other nations, take the culturist mission of self-definition and self-defense, to be a common sense part of their mission. We should not be surprised that they have a distinct culture or defend it; we should learn from it. We also have a distinct culture and should defend it. They practice Saudi culturism, we must practice Western culturism.
I hate to disagree with someone I respect as much as Mr. Pipes, but alas in the interest of illustrating a few points . . .
The article of his with which I take exception concerns Saudi Arabia's airline, Saudia. Its website warns potential passengers that no religious relics are allowed in the Saudi Kingdom. Mr. Pipes rejects, correctly, banning religious items in this country. He then suggests that we ban their airline.
Mr. Pipes and I agree that Saudi Arabia represents a peculiar and different civilization. I hope we also agree that Western civilization is also peculiar and different. Neither can be said to be the best or the future winner in the battle for survival.
What Saudi Arabia allows into their country is none of our business. If they want to only wear red and walk backwards, that is their privilege as a sovereign nation. The idea that we must make them behave like us is based on the idea that Western culture is or should be the default of the world. Even if it should be, it isn't. We must learn to accept that. Our interference in other cultures, our attempts to remake them in our image, will likely lead to failure and resentment.
While they are them, we are us (what a sentence!). The West is a distinctive and unique group of cultures. America also has distinctive traditions. While we cannot ban mosques, we must recognize that they are a threat to our separation of church and state, because there is no separation (witness Saudi Arabia) between mosque and state. While Saudi Arabia has a right to define itself, we have a right and duty to define ourselves.
To this end, we should immediately ban Saudi Monies from coming into America for the purpose of building mosques and funding advocacy groups. We can welcome investment. This is culturally neutral. But mosques are not in the Western tradition. We have 1400 years of war with Islam. Their attempts to overtake Europe being repelled on September 11th, 1683 is not so far away that we can again allow the creation of Islamic centers in Western lands. Just as we have no universal right to bring crosses into their lands, they do not have a universal right to fund culturally aggressive programs in our land. The problem with assertions of universal rights and rejecting Saudi Arabia's right to define and defend itself is that it undermines the same rights for us. Cultural rights of self-determination should be respected.
Two culturist principles are herein clarified. One is that diversity exists and will exist. The details about Wahhabi supremicist groups in his article should scare us and alert us to the fact that not all peoples are Westerners or Americans. The other culturist principle is that Saudi Arabia, as well as most other nations, take the culturist mission of self-definition and self-defense, to be a common sense part of their mission. We should not be surprised that they have a distinct culture or defend it; we should learn from it. We also have a distinct culture and should defend it. They practice Saudi culturism, we must practice Western culturism.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Education, diversity, and culturism
Technorati Profile
Diversity exists and we have a culture. Culturism emphasizes both of these truths. John Andrews reports that the "we" in the first sentence cannot be defined by the Colorado University Regent Paul Schauer. While Colorado University has ethnic studies, it has no Western Civilization program (which might explain the Regent's appauling lack of education). And this mindset results in, as the case here, a failure to define and promote ourselves - culturism. Our failure to promote Western Civilization is very frightening.
Sometimes definition by contrast is the clearest. That is why culturists must remind people of the very diversity concept they laud. Three execution style murders of students in Newark, New Jersey fall outside the pale of Western Civilization. But, Schaer might assert, that was an abberation from any cultural point of view, wasn't it? The answer is no; diversity is wide. Ethnic ethos are not just variations of politeness.
Violent cultures in which machismo and an early death are the norm exist. Much of Mexico is run by drug runners who commit brutal murders in a short and glorious life. This is an outgrowth of the general fatalism of the culture. It is not an abberation, it is a stable mutli-generational cultural way of life. If you celebrate diversity without qualification, you celebrate M-13 style death cults. Rejecting that lifestyle highlights appreciation for Western Civilizations sense of fair play, rule of law, respect for the individual, and optimism.
Somalis recently watched as a woman was brutalized and raped in their apartment building. Could brutalizing women be a part of a culture? Yes. Western Civilization allows women rights. Women in many long - stable cultures have been treated as livestock and slaves. Honor killings, female genital mutilation, and cultures where women cannot go outside without their husband's permission, exist. Tell that to the women's studies department and those celebrating ethnics. The Somalis were just practicing their ethnic culture in Western lands. Women's rights are a part of Western Civilization.
Recently a Muslim woman shot her husband because he was going to Morocco to get a second wife. Our laws cannot even accomodate such diversity. How do we marry the second wife? Can each sue for their part if he dies? Our laws are based upon expected cultural habits. What if women are to be kept in Hegabs and they are not allowed to take them off for driver's license photos? If people want to marry multiple women or not allow them to drive or have honor killings or wear hegabs in other countries, that is not our business. But it cannot happen in Western nations. Westen legal systems are based on western cultural assumptions. If you want to know about Western civilization look at the philosophical and cultural assumptions in our laws.
We do have a culture. It is progressive. It believes in the dignity of individual conscience. The application of the mind to problems of the world allowed us to create the modern life that we have helped spread around the world and allows those from around the world to come to Western nations. But that does not mean that global diversity is over. We have a specific culture that, are you listening Regent Schauer, stems from a tradition starting with Socrates questioning, moving to Jesus' belief in equality for all in love and potential, our Enlghtenment ideals getting us away from warlords and creating science, and - yes - progressive political movements.
Ours is a specific culture it has taken eons of struggle to create. It is not just the world's default. If we do not wish people to passively watch rapes, do execution style murders, and have multiple wives in this country we have to assert that these behaviors are wrong. We have to tell people, in essence, about Western culture. We need to announce the correlary truth that sustaining our culture requires people to apply themselves reasonably to the problems of the world, in a progressive, and law-abiding manner. We need to teach about our historic respect for the individual mind and its abilities. Without defining ourselves, without borders and laws, we can slip deep into the diverse natural tendencies of man. That is why we must teach Western Civilization.
Diversity exists and we have a culture. Culturism emphasizes both of these truths. John Andrews reports that the "we" in the first sentence cannot be defined by the Colorado University Regent Paul Schauer. While Colorado University has ethnic studies, it has no Western Civilization program (which might explain the Regent's appauling lack of education). And this mindset results in, as the case here, a failure to define and promote ourselves - culturism. Our failure to promote Western Civilization is very frightening.
Sometimes definition by contrast is the clearest. That is why culturists must remind people of the very diversity concept they laud. Three execution style murders of students in Newark, New Jersey fall outside the pale of Western Civilization. But, Schaer might assert, that was an abberation from any cultural point of view, wasn't it? The answer is no; diversity is wide. Ethnic ethos are not just variations of politeness.
Violent cultures in which machismo and an early death are the norm exist. Much of Mexico is run by drug runners who commit brutal murders in a short and glorious life. This is an outgrowth of the general fatalism of the culture. It is not an abberation, it is a stable mutli-generational cultural way of life. If you celebrate diversity without qualification, you celebrate M-13 style death cults. Rejecting that lifestyle highlights appreciation for Western Civilizations sense of fair play, rule of law, respect for the individual, and optimism.
Somalis recently watched as a woman was brutalized and raped in their apartment building. Could brutalizing women be a part of a culture? Yes. Western Civilization allows women rights. Women in many long - stable cultures have been treated as livestock and slaves. Honor killings, female genital mutilation, and cultures where women cannot go outside without their husband's permission, exist. Tell that to the women's studies department and those celebrating ethnics. The Somalis were just practicing their ethnic culture in Western lands. Women's rights are a part of Western Civilization.
Recently a Muslim woman shot her husband because he was going to Morocco to get a second wife. Our laws cannot even accomodate such diversity. How do we marry the second wife? Can each sue for their part if he dies? Our laws are based upon expected cultural habits. What if women are to be kept in Hegabs and they are not allowed to take them off for driver's license photos? If people want to marry multiple women or not allow them to drive or have honor killings or wear hegabs in other countries, that is not our business. But it cannot happen in Western nations. Westen legal systems are based on western cultural assumptions. If you want to know about Western civilization look at the philosophical and cultural assumptions in our laws.
We do have a culture. It is progressive. It believes in the dignity of individual conscience. The application of the mind to problems of the world allowed us to create the modern life that we have helped spread around the world and allows those from around the world to come to Western nations. But that does not mean that global diversity is over. We have a specific culture that, are you listening Regent Schauer, stems from a tradition starting with Socrates questioning, moving to Jesus' belief in equality for all in love and potential, our Enlghtenment ideals getting us away from warlords and creating science, and - yes - progressive political movements.
Ours is a specific culture it has taken eons of struggle to create. It is not just the world's default. If we do not wish people to passively watch rapes, do execution style murders, and have multiple wives in this country we have to assert that these behaviors are wrong. We have to tell people, in essence, about Western culture. We need to announce the correlary truth that sustaining our culture requires people to apply themselves reasonably to the problems of the world, in a progressive, and law-abiding manner. We need to teach about our historic respect for the individual mind and its abilities. Without defining ourselves, without borders and laws, we can slip deep into the diverse natural tendencies of man. That is why we must teach Western Civilization.
Friday, August 3, 2007
China's 2008 Olympics
Technorati Profile
Yesterday I saw my first advertisement for the 2008 Olympics in China. This event will bring prestige to China. On the same day I received my monthly copy of the fabulous newsletter Impris (get it free at www.hillsdale.edu). For once, I was not in sympathy with this month's article. It was called "Dealing with China in the Coming Years."
The Impris article was worried about China's influence and sustainability, military, and economy. I share worry about our not effectively competing with China economically. We should be as anti-egalitarian and as pro-Western in our dealings with them as they are pro-Chinese. But the rest of the article was very impatient that China turn into a liberal democracy. The article asserts that they are a "dictatorship" and optimistically proclaims in the alst paragraph, "We should talk back to the Chinese when they question our open society, and openly criticize Chinese repression. Above all, we should continue to be a beacon for freedom. . . "
When the Olympics start those who believe in universal human rights will start protesting of China. They will basically be saying that the entire world must adopt Western standards of right and wrong. The Impris article is worried because China's GDP quadrupled between 1978 and 1992. It has since been growing faster. And yet we, with our huge trade deficits are supposed to tell them how to live! Abstract and absolute application of rights for criminals and students and uncensored media are our way. They need not be the way of the whole world.
We are a young nation. As the Impris article points out Asian - American students comprise 50 percent or more of the student body at numerous universities. Perhaps we have something to learn. If we continue to confuse liberty and licence; the right to be responsible in numerous ways and the right to party without consequence; we may not be around as long as China. Rather than telling other people that they must be like us, we can best secure liberty by telling our current population that they must be more like our forefathers. China's future is not our responsibility. We must take care of ourselves.
The Olympics should teach us something. It is a competitive world. Teams that do not accept discipline from their coaches are at a disadvantage. Teams that will allow you to play regardless of how many practices you miss will fail. Teams on which the members do not really care if they win or not - those that are committed to the whole world being one big team under Western individualism - may lose. We should enjoy and learn from China's 2008 Olympics. We should rally for our team, instead of decrying theirs.
Yesterday I saw my first advertisement for the 2008 Olympics in China. This event will bring prestige to China. On the same day I received my monthly copy of the fabulous newsletter Impris (get it free at www.hillsdale.edu). For once, I was not in sympathy with this month's article. It was called "Dealing with China in the Coming Years."
The Impris article was worried about China's influence and sustainability, military, and economy. I share worry about our not effectively competing with China economically. We should be as anti-egalitarian and as pro-Western in our dealings with them as they are pro-Chinese. But the rest of the article was very impatient that China turn into a liberal democracy. The article asserts that they are a "dictatorship" and optimistically proclaims in the alst paragraph, "We should talk back to the Chinese when they question our open society, and openly criticize Chinese repression. Above all, we should continue to be a beacon for freedom. . . "
When the Olympics start those who believe in universal human rights will start protesting of China. They will basically be saying that the entire world must adopt Western standards of right and wrong. The Impris article is worried because China's GDP quadrupled between 1978 and 1992. It has since been growing faster. And yet we, with our huge trade deficits are supposed to tell them how to live! Abstract and absolute application of rights for criminals and students and uncensored media are our way. They need not be the way of the whole world.
We are a young nation. As the Impris article points out Asian - American students comprise 50 percent or more of the student body at numerous universities. Perhaps we have something to learn. If we continue to confuse liberty and licence; the right to be responsible in numerous ways and the right to party without consequence; we may not be around as long as China. Rather than telling other people that they must be like us, we can best secure liberty by telling our current population that they must be more like our forefathers. China's future is not our responsibility. We must take care of ourselves.
The Olympics should teach us something. It is a competitive world. Teams that do not accept discipline from their coaches are at a disadvantage. Teams that will allow you to play regardless of how many practices you miss will fail. Teams on which the members do not really care if they win or not - those that are committed to the whole world being one big team under Western individualism - may lose. We should enjoy and learn from China's 2008 Olympics. We should rally for our team, instead of decrying theirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)