From a forum.
When people say to immigrant minorities, "I don't want you to be white", I don't understand this hedge.
You, Black Jack, moved to White England from your native country of Jackimbe. You did so because you thought you'd have a better life here. That this country is doing better than yours.
Now, the reason this country is doing better is because the people here are white. They think white and they act white. By acting white for the last hundred years or so, they've built up a massive industry and a very healthy economy.
If you're coming to this country because you like it better here, then it makes sense you should act white, because being white is why this country is good. If you're coming to this country to stay black, but still enjoy the union jobs, public healthcare and Dr. Who on terrestrial television, then you're an asshole and you're going to be treated like an asshole.
Of course, by "white" I mean mentality, not biology.
In mental terms, most established, latter-generation minorities are white Europeans. They believe in fundamental white concepts - the superiority of personal freedom, the government's prime obligation to provide security and prosperity for its citizens, and individual responsibility for one's fate.
White ideology isn't limited geographically to Europe, of course. It works in Australia, it works in Japan, it works in Brazil, it even works in Botswana.
Juxtaposed to this is the Asian ideology, where the state is more important than the society; the group is not just an efficient way to act in the interests of individuals, but rather individuals are called upon to act for the good of the group. Where European ideology may exceptionally request personal sacrifice, and that is given as a personal choice and accepted with heavy heart, Asian ideology demands personal sacrifice to begin with, and it is an everyday occurrence. Whether you are tolerating abuse, corruption and limitation of personal freedom for the glory of Allah or for the glory of Mother Russia, it is still an ideology that diminishes the value of the individual, where European ideology idolizes it.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
huh?
Yups. I remember only a few days back I had to explain a moscow friend of mine why I consider Russia an asiatic state.
Kind of hard to see the author's points through his piss-poor choice of terms. I mean, maybe I'm being overly politically correct, but .. "acting white" and "thinking white"? Come on. And reducing the reasons for why Britain is doing better than your random African or Asian nation to this?
Though it is true that the importance of the individual in "western" nation is a factor in these countries' success, because .. who'll work harder "for the community" or "for the state" than for his own self interest? This is capitalism though, which unlike communism or islam takes into account that humans are inherintly selfish. It's not "being white" or some shit like that.
Space_maze said: This is capitalism though, which unlike communism or islam takes into account that humans are inherintly selfish.
True, but the usual epithet 'Western Capitalism' recognizes the origins of thinking which recognises and emphasises the preeminence of the individual as a basic unit of society. So in that sense, Western is 'white.'
And communism, also, was the creation of western, "white" cultures. Even if one was to consider Russian "Asian" (and thus "non-white"), communism would still be European - a German/English creation.
Who's to say that "white" is capitalist, as opposed to communist? Europe's impact on the world has been MUCH too massive to just pick out the parts you like, and say that these are "white". That's complete bullshit. Not when Europe happens to also be the leading power in the world in regard colonialisation, extermination of foreign cultures, and slavery.
maze,
But Europe has stopped and denounced these practices, there's the difference.
BTW, did you notice the post's title? ;)
And communism, also, was the creation of western, "white" cultures.
The ideology of communism, as envisaged by Karl Marx and his followers, is not the same thing as the practice of Marxism-Leninism. The Soviet Union was evil because it was totalitarian, not because it was communist. Communism was simply a useful base ideology for establishing a totalitarian regime. Relatively few people were ever true believers in communism.
As for Marx's initial ideology itself, it made sense at the time it was thought up. Communism was the child of the Industrial Revolution, when the ruling class treated the working class like the machines they operated. Rapid increases in productivity and automation lead to the improvement of the working class's condition, to the point where the common folk were no longer unjustifiably oppressed, and communism became irrelevant.
I agree that capitalism is only one aspect of "white" European mentality, but that doesn't invalidate the juxtaposition.
And yes, the choice of terms was intended to offend as many people as possible. :P
job well done!
to assume, that the "western and white" societies' economic success has anything to do with the value of their members as individuals is sure to offend. even me, although i am a member of such a society. :)
FlasherT, the III Reich was totalitarian as well. AND western.
The ideology of communism, as envisaged by Karl Marx and his followers, is not the same thing as the practice of Marxism-Leninism. The Soviet Union was evil because it was totalitarian, not because it was communist. Communism was simply a useful base ideology for establishing a totalitarian regime. Relatively few people were ever true believers in communism.
I agree that Marx' visions are not to be held accountable for the crimes of the Soviet Union, and that they're based on the problems of the time, and hardly "evil".
But "evil" isn't what this article was about, it was about how effective different societies are. I cannot see pure communism, in any form, *ever* being effective anywhere outside of "Star Trek".
And yes, the choice of terms was intended to offend as many people as possible. :P
That much was obvious :P .. and I don't much have a problem with texts getting very "strong" to aid a point to be made. But here, it only clouds up the point - which IS there to some degree. If you migrate to a different country due to this country being more "effective" than yours, it does make sense to try to become as much of a "real member" of this country's society as possible, to keep it effective.
job well done!
to assume, that the "western and white" societies' economic success has anything to do with the value of their members as individuals is sure to offend. even me, although i am a member of such a society. :)
That is the one part of the article I sort of agree with. But it isn't because societies "value their members as individuals" .. it's because societies, to some degree, just mind their own business in regard to the actions of others.
My dear self-hating liberal friend. The West colonized ie. civilized the savage man, whereas the East conquered and enslaved. I highly recommend that you watch 300. It gives the perfect demonstration of the difference in mentality between East and West. Booya!
If you're seriously basing your views on cultures on the 300, you need help. Sorry. That's like basing your views on astronomy on Armageddon.
How Cortez' Mexican campaigns, the destruction of native American
cultures, the colonialisation of Australia and New Zealand, the plundering of Africa's natural resources, the enslavement of western Africans to work on American cotton/sugar farms, THE HOLOCAUST, et cetera, were all acts of "civilising savages", would also interest me.
This is true. No general theory is ever without exceptions. Even then, the NSDAP came to power legitimately, through perfectly democratic means.
I cannot see pure communism, in any form, *ever* being effective anywhere outside of "Star Trek".
Fair enough. This probably explains why communism was never seriously attempted anywhere in the West. (Britain's 70s Welfare State, with its three-day work week, probably came closest.)
I don't consider myself 'white' -- usually Italian-American. There are also Italian-Canadians and Italian-Chileans, and Italian-Brazilians. These are people who left Italy in the 1920s and became part of the New World mixing pot.
For what it's worth, Italy is a relatively unstable democracy (stable only in its instability), dominated by corruption at almost every level -- the mob, the church, big business, the government.
That's why I think Italian-Americans aren't that shocked by the way we are portrayed globally. Because it is mostly true! I met a guy here in Tartu who asked about my background. I owned up to my Italian heritage, to which he replied.
"Italian? Ah, mafioso"
The idea that I am as "white" as your Presbyterian Scotsman is wholly incorrect. That's why the multicultural lexicon of Italian-Americans and Paraguayan-Brits and Turkish-Germans is a tad bit better than your "whites" and "blacks" and "asians."
Post a Comment