May 13, 2005
Tumblers in the Lock of Time, Part Six
Culture
The Culture Wars. Sounds so grand. The notion shapes and has shaped the attitudes of many, especially people on this site. The notion that the left is eroding away society, and must be stopped before it destroys it. It’s a notion that confuses us liberals, as we don’t picture ourselves as evil. We explain that, and the conservatives go, oh, well, you just don’t know it. Great. Now we’re being patronized. Has anybody considered that the culture war is just a fruitless waste of time, that would better be spent talking to the other side of the aisle as if they were adults?
I think in some way, culture war rhetoric is as much a part of the youth culture as it is a reaction against it. It's so teenage angst in it's black and white outlook, and it so fits the baby-boomer model of delayed maturity.
That it is so much a product of the youth culture would go far to explaining its ineffectiveness in rolling back the obvious slide in terms of permissiveness in the media. How is this? Every new generation is raised in the old media environment, and comes to accept the mores of that time as the object of conservation. Instead of stopping or rolling back the tide of objectionable material, it can only serve to institutionalize a level of objectionable material to begin with.
What's more, the culture war's battles have become very content independent. I mean, come on, the Teletubbies? Spongebob Squarepants? They pass right over the raunch of the bouncy girls on the Man show and all of that assorted nonsense, and they go straight to asexual kids shows. They see liberal conspiracies to corrupt our children in every popular pop phenomenon. Not even Harry Potter is safe. But complain about the flood of cynical material like Survivor or Fear Factor? People wonder whether they can show noble material like Saving Private Ryan, yet have few qualms about Desperate Housewives, except when a bare backed seduction is shown before the football game.
The pattern should be plain. They take some well known show with little objectionable content, and they find something to object to by claiming there's a hidden touch of obscenity there. Or, they find stuff whose content is objectionable, and start making the rules about that, regardless of the moral qualities of the story.
Why those things? Because parent's fears are easier to control on those grounds. Get into debates about what the story's really about, and you may find that our culture is not nearly as bankrupt as it seems. As a consequence, though, they miss many of the obvious hits whose morality is questionable, because those hits often are created under regimes of cautious content control which ensures that nothing the audience sees is too bloody, too profane, or too naked. You'll rarely catch them doing something controversial unless they want the attention. The culture warriors only manage to make typically mediocre material forbidden fruit, warning everybody about the danger to public morality- and thereby increasing ratings.
It's a lot easier to make such measureable strikes against sin and wrongthinking in the media, than to counter the cynicism and mercenary attitudes that really corrupt the media. The truth is, the culture warrior go out and get their attention, and do little else. They have their reward: their piety is acknowledged by their audience. What they should be doing is teaching storytelling from their own perspective.
People wonder why Hollywood is so Liberal. I'd say it's because liberals take the arts more seriously as a set of professions. They're not told from birth that the media is out to get them. They're also provided with a healthy skepticism of the products of that media. Conservatives need to become more savvy consumers of the media, and less paranoid. Paranoia is the error of naivete taken in the opposite direction, and can be exploited as such.
That's what Fox News is. Can't trust the media? Head in our direction! Instead of looking at the product critically, and deciding that way, Fox News Afficionados go it's way because it's not the liberal media. It was marketed on being "fair and balanced", a claim that only makes sense in the context of the claim that the competitor is otherwise. Fox News is comfort food for people who believe the rest of the media too liberal.
Separation is the name of the game, encouraging Republcans and conservatives to uproot from everybody else and form an echo chamber of conformity. We can't make everybody else think our way, we might as well circle the wagons and try and reinforce our beliefs within our enclaves. In the end though, this alienation only makes dealing with the rest of society more difficult.
This is how Bush got reelected, despite all he screwed up: he simply played the culture war's paranoia against itself. Elect us once more, or see all that you love perish. Meanwhile, the rest of us, who see the irrationality of Bush's policies, predict ruin.
Nothing like competing prophecies of the same doom to create an empasse, huh? That empasse should have been bypassed, but we Liberals considered the issues at hand too important to let go on our sides. It was a trap for both our sides, one we cannot easily avoid as long as unity is the surrender of one side or another in a war, rather than the unity born of understanding and a willingness to understand.
That takes discussion and compromise. That takes patience and humility. These are not the things an immature culture does well.
We have to grow up, and realize that when the next terrorist attack or economic recession comes our way, the crisis will not fall along party lines. It is time to look beyond the interests of one culture, subculture, or counterculture against another, but to look at the rest of the nearly three hundred million Americans and recognize that somewhere in there, we have interests at heart that closely resemble one another.
Our government was set up by our founding fathers so that no one religion, ideology, or faction could achieve state-sponsored dominance over all others. Where other countries outlaw certain political parties, stifle dissent, impose one religion on all in their borders, ours lets people choose. We are Catholics and Protestants and Jews and Muslims and Atheists at our own choice. We are Democrat, Green, Natural Law, Libertarian, Independent, or Republican by choice. We are Religious Right or Secular left and everything else on those spectrums by choice.
Ours is a culture of freedom, and the only two things stand in the way of that freedom- the necessities and consequences of the real world, and our own illusions about those things. We have prospered as a society, because a person can choose to believe a new belief when the other one fails to work out. Ours is a society that constantly dies, only to be reborn. We are the spring and the summer of modernity, so long as we take advantage of our freedom to escape our illusions when we recognize them as such.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2005 09:02 PMStephen,
“People wonder why Hollywood is so Liberal. I’d say it’s because liberals take the arts more seriously as a set of professions.”
And I’d say it’s because of their ideology, not their artistic disposition. People who become rich through entrepreneurship are inherently conservative while people who become wealthy by entertaining others are naturally more naive and idealistic in the sense that they believe the misfortunes of the poor can somehow be alleviated.
Posted by: Zeek at May 13, 2005 10:26 PMStephen -
While much of the detail you give is true, you’re right that as a liberal you don’t see the big picture that social conservatives see.
Growing up as a conservative Christian in Boston, I’ve been “behind enemy lines” in the culture war. The meat of it is this: my values are respected less and less every year. I’m one of the youngest writers on Watchblog, and even I can honestly say I’ve seen the culture move to the left during my lifetime. Not the political culture: that’s where the backlash is being felt. But in the man-on-the-street culture, Blue America moves further away from me every day.
That makes it a problem (for us), but does it make it a war? It could simply be diagnosed as a sort of “natural disaster”, where the culture is moving away from us by its own whim and trend. But we see - often up close and personal - people who expressly want to change culture to fit their far-left-wing view of the world. The ones on TV are high-profile and easy to target. But the ones in your neighborhood or your theatre group are a lot closer to home, and have a much more powerful way of making you feel unwanted and unrespected.
This is the culture war: two polarized visions of what America should be. It’s not a few atavistic people of faith digging in their heels against the general wave of the future. Rather, it’s a tug-of-war on values, pitting two equally determined and equally pushy (or ‘pully’?) groups against each other for permission to set the cultural tone. And as far as I can tell, the left is winning.
Get it?
Posted by: Chops at May 13, 2005 10:27 PMChops,
“I’m one of the youngest writers on Watchblog”
Lol, to me, everyone here is OLD. I can’t even imagine being your age… But what you say about a cultural shift in such a short time period is nonetheless interesting.
“And as far as I can tell, the left is winning.”
… Coulda fooled me…
Perhaps they will be in the near future, but I would have to say that the cultural tone is set by who is in power, and therefore it is the right that is “winning.” At the moment, I’m not sure who I want to “win” anyways.
Posted by: Zeek at May 13, 2005 10:33 PMFor me the essence of the culture war is the relativity of values and rejection of traditional western ideals.
I am not certain of all the values of the world, but I do believe that there are right and wrong things. I do not believe that all cultures and all behaviors are equally valid and I don’t believe everyone’s opinion is of equal value.
I believe that western culture is a really good thing and that American values in particular are especially good. Our culture encompasses the wisdom of other cultures. Only the ignorant believe that previous generations of educated Americans didn’t know much about other cultures.
While I know there are many things that should change, I believe that we should be careful, since we do have such a good thing going. Society is like ecology. If you start taking out some parts it might affect many others and may cause the whole system to degrade.
I believe in reading the classics, which is a very multicultural group. It includes authors from the Mediterranean, Africa, and Asia, as well as Northern and Western Europe. The authors are all dead, but they are neither all white Europeans nor male. That belief is another example of the ignorance of the bogus multicultural establishment that runs many university departments.
BTW a classic has to have influenced other writings or ideas. It is impossible to have a classic that is less than a generation old and it is impossible to “discover” a classic that few people have read or heard about since it could not have influenced others.
Oh yeah, oral history is not worth the paper it is printed on. It provides only a direction for inquiry never proof.
I admire the founders of our democracy. As a historian, I am well aware of their follies and flaws, but I don’t appreciate them being torn down on every occasion or their importance minimized. In my son’s textbook, Harriet Tubman got a page of her own; George Washington didn’t. This is just silly.
Anyway, I was just dumping a little of what I believe are grievances of the culture war.
Chops-
I think you’re leaving out half of the story. I’m a liberal going to school in Indiana so I’m also “behind enemy lines” as you call it. I can definitely tell you that intolerance thrives on both sides of the political fence. Conservatives aren’t the only ones whose ideas get disrespected, while at the same time I know liberals aren’t entirely innocent. I can dare say that, if I were in a situation where I was in the majority, I would probably be guilty of a little political intolerance as well, as most people probably would. Maybe conservatism is rare on the streets of Boston, but in ‘fly-over zone’ where I am, “man-on-the-street culture” is very conservative. It just depends on where you are(and I think conservative candidates sweeping last years’ elections proved pretty well which side is “winning”).
Jack said:
Oh yeah, oral history is not worth the paper it is printed on.
No pun intended?
Mia said:
Conservatives aren’t the only ones whose ideas get disrespected, while at the same time I know liberals aren’t entirely innocent. I can dare say that, if I were in a situation where I was in the majority, I would probably be guilty of a little political intolerance as well, as most people probably would.
Exactly. That’s what makes it a war, not just a “conservative problem”.
Zeek said:
Perhaps they [the left] will be [winning the culture war] in the near future, but I would have to say that the cultural tone is set by who is in power, and therefore it is the right that is “winning.” At the moment, I’m not sure who I want to “win” anyways.
See, on Watchblog and other political forums, it’s easy to mistake political power for cultural power, but as I said, I think the conservative political muscle of late is a symptom of their feeling that they’ve been slipping steadily in the culture war. But even in the political arena, social conservatives are playing defense on the main issues. Abortion has been an uphill fight since 1973. Gay marriage was put on the agenda by homosexual activists, con’s are trying to stop a liberal “advance”. Stem cell research and cloning are new technologies that con’s want to limit/slow/stop. America’s worldview is moving leftward. That in itself is a subject for a long discussion, but if you want an idea of the kind of thing I’m talking about, check out Reverend Al Mohler’s blog.
Posted by: Chops at May 13, 2005 11:12 PMChops
I hear that Calvin Coolidge was often making one liner jokes, but nobody noticed. The saying is a variation of the common comment about oral contracts.
Although it is only a small part of the culture war, but the bowdlerization of history particularly irritates me. In order to get the proper multicultural mix, we have to lower our standards for evidence to include oral histories. There are problems with written sources, but at least you can check whether they are contemporary or not. Oral history can be made up and altered at any time.
Are we talking about the “culture” that make’s
it allright to murder the unborn? My, what kind
hearts you must have.All your self serving BS
is all for nothing.Get busy fixing things you
screwed up, and quit your neverending bitching.
Here’s a theory about the so-called culture wars: we’ve badly lost our way and now we’re thrashing at one another in a kind of existential desperation. Yeah, I know. Deep. Well, it gets worse. Now I’m going to quote the Tao Te Ching:
When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.
The Tao is the Chinese word for The Way. It’s a sort of indefinable something but I like to think of it as “the zone,” that place you occasionally find yourself when you’re an athelete or an artist or anyone who gets into a groove where they can seemingly do no wrong at the thing they love most. It’s a selfless place, sort of like God’s grace. Maybe it is a touch God’s grace.
In America, we’ve largely lost it as a society. And because we’ve lost it, we turn to narrow strictures about morality or we give up and descend directly into rituals of religion or reality TV shows or porn flix or political platforms or economic ideologies. We turn to these rituals or we descend directly into chaos.
It’s a kind of coming apart of the spirit, and it assails both the fundamentalist who preaches intolerance and the hedonist who lives only for the satiation of the self. It is at the heart of the culture wars.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at May 13, 2005 11:27 PM
And stop trying to rewrite history.
History is made up of fact’s, not some crackpots
opinion.
That’s a mouthfull of BS. Say what you think/mean, To much to ask? Enough with the cut
and paste crap.
“America’s worldview is moving leftward.”
Hasn’t it always been? In the 1920’s, conservatives feared the “liberal advance” of the flappers. In the 1950’s, social conservatives of the time feared the “liberal advance” of the civil rights movement and the feminist movement. Is America getting more liberal? Yes. It always has been, it’s just that now, under conservative power, it’s getting more liberal at a slower rate (for math kids - liberalism is increasing at a decreasing rate).
These things run in cycles - up through the 60’s, liberals ruled the day. Then liberalism has been gradually slowing until now we’re at the verge of conservative “rule” (so to speak) for a while. However, all that means is that there will be a period of little or no change to certain values within American society, followed by a liberal-ruling cycle of more drastic social changes. In a way, this is how the two extremes eventually moderate and find a happy medium. In my opinion, neither extreme would be beneficial to society without its opposing counterpart (like a “yin” without the “yang”). I think I got off topic a little..
Posted by: Mia at May 13, 2005 11:41 PMAs a footnote to my last comment - the liberal “cycle” running through the 60’s started in the 20’s.. prior to that was a more conservative cycle, etc.
Posted by: mia at May 13, 2005 11:48 PMChops, Jack-
My point is that there are no enemy lines. The war is all in our heads. It’s a game that people have taken too seriously, and now have forgotten to stop playing. It’s politics played out at a level where it starts to be destructive to the fabric of the community.
Ex: coverage of the war. The Republicans have gotten to the point where all negative publicity about the war equates with a wish to knock down President Bush, rooted in nothing but the contrariness of liberality.
A great man, they say, and the envious Democrats want to bring him down. How can you deal with reality if you choose to ignore or disparage that news which does not reflect well on a leader?
If the facts are real, then you must deal with their implications or fall into error despite your best intentions. If they are real, the Democrats do not attack him from envy, but fear, fear of his continued error. In which case, you and the Democrats may have common cause, as uncomfortable as that might make you.
Let’s not confuse worldviews with real worlds.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2005 12:33 AMStephen,
Good job, very thought provoking!
Reed,
Very cool quote. I like it a lot. Thank you.
Rin TT,
History is written by the winners. The ‘facts’ of history are relative, a point of view, a recording framed by the perception of the observer.
“Civilization only produces a greater variety of sensations in man- and absolutely nothing more.”
Dostoevsky, “Notes from the Underground”
There are two elements underlying the culture wars, and these have been touched upon in some respect.
I remember a bit of trivia. In an Egyptian pyramid a bit of graffiti was discovered, graffiti thousands of years old. The writer of the graffiti lamented the lax morals of the younger generation.
It’s an almost genetic problem, the conflict between rebellious youth, ready to leave the home and enter adulthood, versus the experienced parent, wishing to treat the youth
as a child. This conflict manifests itself in the culture wars, but I’d like to move on to the second point.
The Dostoevsky quote may be true in emotional terms, but I do not believe it is true in terms of morality.
Over time, morality changes. For example, take the story of Lot. In the only example illustrating Lot’s moral nature, he extends hospitality and takes two angels under his roof. An angry mob gathers outside, and demands Lot hand the strangers over to them. Lot addresses the crowd:
“Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”
Genesis 19:8
The story is inexplicable in terms of modern sensibilities. Lot offers his virgin daughters to the crowd for a gang rape, in order to protect two strangers under his roof. But in terms of the morality of over two thousand years ago, Lot’s actions not only make perfect sense, they are commendable. By maintaining the moral sanctity of protecting the guest, he wins approval as a good man, the only one worth saving from a wicked city.
By the way, we recently saw a version of this moral code in Afghanistan. OBL was a guest of the Afghans. Protecting a guest was more important to them than any threatened consequence.
And so, morality changes. In addition, science, technology, and information are changing society at a faster and faster rate.
This produces tremendous stress on a conservative, fundamentalist mentality. Trapped by belief in a static sacred text, the conservative fundamentalist is deeply threatened by an evolving society and an evolving morality.
It’s a hopeless battle, one a conservative fundamentalist cannot help to win, anymore than a child can remain a child forever.
And it’s a battle which will be fought over and over again, generation after generation.
Posted by: phx8 at May 14, 2005 01:09 AM
“Are we talking about the “culture” that make’s
it allright to murder the unborn?”
The question posed by Rin TT inadvertently provides a perfect example supporting my point.
In Genesis 2:7 God breathes life into Adam. For most of the history of various Christian churches, the moment of drawing breath, at birth, worked as a definiton of when life begins. No rites were observed for the ‘unborn,’ and for good reason; given the state of science, technology, and the information available, the moment of breath served as an adequate definition of life until fairly recently.
But science, technology, and information have forced morality to change. The conservative fundamentalist of a thousand years ago could not imagine the complexities of embryonic development, never mind stem cells, cloning, etc. A statement like ‘ontogeny recapitulates philogeny’ would completely blow their mind.
To make matters worse, the Bible is filled with contradictions on this subject. Culture changes, and morality changes, and the conservative fundamentalist struggles mightily to adapt, yet the sacred text remains static, and less and less relevant.
And just as the ‘good’ Christian of a thousand years ago could not imagine the morality, practices, and dilemnas faced by a ‘good’ Christian today, it’s likely the same could be said of today’s fundamentalist compared with one a thousand years in the future.
Stephen
You are right about the struggle being in the mind.
The culture war is not really political. People who support Democrats tend to slip on one side and Republicans on the other, but the parties certainly don’t define the debate.
I like most Democrats. I had no trouble supporting most of President Clinton’s policies in their general direction. I understand conflicts about dividing the wealth, taxes and the use of military abroad and can easily change position depending on the situation.
What I can’t abide is the PC thing. It is nothing but weak-minded credulity to believe many of the things taught in gender and the various ethnic studies programs. And I don’t want to allow someone to set up the strawman that I am against other cultures. An educated person is familiar with the history and great literature of Islam, China and India. The problem comes with the ungreat. For example, you still find adulation for Rigoberta Menchú, who made up all the details of her life story.
The culture war for me is against the weak minded credulity the would elevate Hariet Tubman above George Washington that would teach the U.S. Constitution copied the Iroquois Confederacy, that would view the vast sweep American history as a failure or an aggression.
In this war I have both Democratic allies and Republican opponents. For example, I consider anti-evolution theories part of the culture war AND on the other side from me. They represent the same weak minded credulity (my new catch phrase) as most gender studies where you decide what you want and then bend or make up evidence to support it.
Jack-
I’m not the biggest fan of gender or marxist studies either. I think anytime an ideology becomes the means of interpreting the world, rather than the other way around, it becomes a distraction rather than an aid to comprehension.
Political Correctness is not an evil, as long as it’s used to keep our assumptions from crossing the line into prejudice. Prejudices can kill. They did on 9/11. On 9/11, the hijackers did their best to avoid appearing like our stereotypical picture of a terrorist, using our preconceive idea of what a terrorist should look like to lull us into a false sense of security.
I think greeting political correctness with too much hostility is a mistake. There are times when it can be excessive - not devoting enough attention to our first president being an example- but if political organization in this country was influenced by Native American forms of governance, we should not fear to include that. If there is evidence to suggest that our national story is not one of pure goodness, then it is no sin to revise closer to the truth. American history is not failure in my eyes, nor is it in the eyes of most liberals like me. We in fact see the course of history as progress. We’re building a society greater than those who came before us. They may not have been perfect, but at least they handed us the means by which to refine and improve our nation. To the extent that those on the left disagree with those points, I disagree with them.
We cannot ignore the foibles of our nation. The very word comes from the term for the final third of a sword, the most vulnerable part to breakage. We must be practical in dealing with our errors and the errors of our fathers or risk repeating or aggravating them.
In fighting the culture war, you may be fighting an uncomfortable truth, or a point of view that you cannot change by rigid opposition. In that, treating culture as a battleground can only lead to frustration and hostilities.
That is the part of the Culture war I find to be most troublesome. Our ancestors have done things we would consider shameful and regretful, held opinions we would consider rather extreme or even inhumane in our time.
If we are to have any notion of our own history, it must be one that unflinchingly faces the troubles of our past. Otherwise it’s not history, it’s national myth. National Myth has its uses, but it leaves one cut off from the past, as the national myth is always modified to suit the needs and the prejudices of the current generation. We have to have some grounding to understand how our nation got in the shape its in, otherwise, we are vulnerable to our own illusions about it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2005 10:13 AMWhile we all talk about theory, let us not forget that these things kill people. The War in Iraq will almost certainly reduce the Benefits targeting Children, Disabled and Elderly. While it is nice to hear about the unborn, the non-existent priority Republicans give to the Living Children speaks volumes of their Religion.
Posted by: Aldous at May 14, 2005 11:27 AMI thought the culture wars was that hippies vs. squares thing back in the sixties. I think the culture wars ended long ago but conservatives are still mad they missed out on the pre-AIDS free love thing.
I believe that western culture is a really good thing and that American values in particular are especially good.
Well, who the hell is going to argue with that? In my entire life I’ve never met an American who believed western culture is bad or that Harriet Tubman is better than George Washington.
As far as I can tell, all this culture war stuff is made up by politicians soliciting votes so they can save us from “them”. You know, “them”. The undefined “them” that’re responsible for all your problems.
It’s just plain lazy thinking to blame some nameless “them” or “liberals” or “the left”. Name some names, otherwise you just making an annoying sound.
Mia,
You didn’t get off topic. In fact, I think you spoke exactly on topic. This is a bigger picture than red or blue ideology. The “ying” and “yang” thing is what makes our country great.
Cultural ideology, although somewhat driven by legislation and politics, is mostly driven from within.
America is for freedom. Freedom to choose not to participate in what you think is wrong, freedom to teach your children your moral values, feedom to turn the TV off, Freedom to deomonstrate against ideologies you disagree with, and feedom to worship or not worship as you please. Trying to solve these problems by legislation is not the solution. Work within your family and community. Your values may be different than those of others, so don’t try to force them on others. Freedom should come with respect. Although I don’t agree with the right or the left on many issues, I respect their rights to their opinions.
Don’t look at this is a war. War’s are made up of enemies. Although enemies may respect one another, they are rarely on the same side. We need to be a nation of Americans first and party second. As stated previously, we need to hold our government accountable for our physical well-being (security) and our fiscal well-being (economy). When either of those things fail, both Red and Blue suffer. We should take care of our moral fabric at home.
Posted by: Tom L at May 14, 2005 12:56 PMHarriet Tubman vs George Washington? Hard to compare, really. Their positions in society and effects on subsequent generations were not at all analogous. I really don’t know who should have more space in a history text, or if they should have equal amounts. I guess it depends on how much space it takes to tell their story, respectively. Of course, to me, the idea that either person’s story could be told in a page is pretty laughable. I’d be greatly in favor of getting our teaching of history back to telling the stories of people and events of the past, rather than the condensed nuggets you find in modern textbooks that are little more than names, dates, and a few paragraphs of description per event. That, to me, is the larger problem with modern textbooks than which person got “higher billing”. Our idea of learning from history anymore is little more than memorizing these condensed nuggets and regurgitating them without understanding. Isn’t it equally weak-minded to accept such nuggets and actually argue over who should get the bigger one, rather than demanding the topics be covered in their entirety?
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 01:12 PMTom:
Well said. Though I’d add that it’s disheartening to see how much the “enemies” in this “war” do not respect one another.
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 01:14 PMAn outstanding essay, full of the logic and conciliatory, openminded spirit that are the hallmarks of the liberal ethos. But it all comes down to one line:
Our government was set up by our founding fathers so that no one religion, ideology, or faction could achieve state-sponsored dominance over all others.
We can deal with that, they can’t. Therein lies the impasse.
Posted by: Steve Horowitz at May 14, 2005 02:29 PMReally fantastic article and great follow-ups, Stephen.
Yours were really great too, phx8 and Reed.
Jarin wrote:
“it’s disheartening to see how much the “enemies” in this “war” do not respect one another.”
The huge difference being of course that those on the Secular Left want those on the Religious Right to be able to hold their views and beliefs. We just find it hard to respect the kind of people who would want to deny anyone their rights and freedoms. While those on the Religious Right hold the view that those on Secular Left are undeserving of respect because in their religions eyes our views are completely wrong and therefore, don’t matter at all.
Quoting Stephen’s article:
>Our government was set up by our founding
>fathers so that no one religion, ideology, or
>faction could achieve state-sponsored dominance
>over all others.
Steve Horowitz:
“We can deal with that, they can’t. Therein lies the impasse.”
Absolutely, and I would have to say that because they cannot, their stance is in direct and total opposition with the ideas that America was founded upon.
Posted by: Adrienne at May 14, 2005 03:16 PMThese folks have a right to hold any view they wish. It is when those views and “values” are imposed on others in the form of law where the problem occurrs. However, remember the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Religious right…whatever, you want to call them make this same allegation. I would like to hear some of those examples from this group.
Posted by: Tom L at May 14, 2005 03:38 PMAdrienne:
The huge difference being of course that those on the Secular Left want those on the Religious Right to be able to hold their views and beliefs. We just find it hard to respect the kind of people who would want to deny anyone their rights and freedoms. While those on the Religious Right hold the view that those on Secular Left are undeserving of respect because in their religions eyes our views are completely wrong and therefore, don’t matter at all.
Your post exemplifies what I mean, however. “We just find it hard to respect the kind of people who would want to deny anyone their rights and freedoms.” is what I’m talking about. In the eyes of the religious right, the secular left are disregarded as sinners, but in the eyes of the secular left the religious right are disregarded as bigots. Do either of these attitudes serve to foster mutual respect? I’d say they both fail equally in that regard.
I don’t presume that I’m wise enough to offer an alternative path, I know that when I hear the words of those on the right on subjects such as same-sex marriage my first thought is often of how hateful they are. As a man living in a same-sex relationship, they’re often personally hurtful. But is it a good idea to brand everyone who leans right on this issue as a bigot? Isn’t it pretty arrogant to assume that so many people are all simply bigots who are too stupid to know better? I know that’s my first reaction, but more and more I’m thinking it shouldn’t be. I’m thinking a real dialogue needs to be reached.
I know from past personal experience that a lot of people personally opposed to homosexuality seem to have never met someone they knew was gay, or if they had this person fit all of their negative stereotypes to a T. They’d never met someone who could pass as straight who they knew was gay, they never met someone who was gay and really normal. (This is all my personal experience, I do not know if it is representative of the general population who hold such views, but at the moment it is all I have to work with.) I also know the questions they asked when they found out that I was gay. Many of them so absurd as to be laughable. And I know that a lot of my answers seemed to surprise them as much as their questions had surprised me.
I think maybe that’s the kind of dialogue that would be more constructive than accusations of ignorance and bigotry, or accusations of sin and immorality.
I’d go on, but I think I’ve rambled enough.
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 03:48 PMAP
Re western culture, you must not have been around universities lately. There are whole protests with hey hey, ho ho western culture’s got to go. All you need do is look at a HS history textbook to see what I mean by the other points.
Stephen
The 9/11 Terrorists fit the profile of terrorists. The trouble is we didn’t recognize it and sometimes still won’t.
When I say PC, I don’t mean taking into account other cultures. Educated people have long done that. Sometimes our histories and literatures overlooked important aspects of other cultures. But you can’t study everything and everything is not of equal value. Generally, you want to look at things that affected the course of events over regions or long time periods. Or you want to look at things that have unique lessons. For example, you might study the natives of Easter Island to understand how a culture can destroy itself by bad choices. Even though their history affected almost nothing else. Or you might study the founders fathers of the U.S. because their efforts grew into the most powerful country of the world. You might forgo studying the Norwegian Constitution (one of the oldest still oldest in the world) not because it was uninteresting, but because you don’t have the time to do everything. It is something only for a specialist.
PC is offensive in three big ways. It relaxes the rules of evidence; it excludes whole people from criticism from outsiders and it determines what and who should be studied ex-post facto. For example, there are long periods of history where a generalist wouldn’t bother doing an intense study of the people of northern Europe, or southern Africa or Latin America or many other places. The Celts of the 1st Century BC are less interesting than the Romans of the same period. Of course, since both those groups are Europeans, I probably can get away with saying that. It is also true that the history of Africa south of the Sahara is much less important than the history of Europe, which some of you will find offensive, but it is true. This is judgment. PC sometime doesn’t like it.
Thanks for the kind words, phx8.
There seem to be a number of theories about the culture wars. One is that the pendulum swings from one side to the other over time, with a few modifications as history continues. It’s pretty much what I think mia was arguing. It reminds me of the concept of Hegelian dialectic.
Then there’s the theory that history proceeds in a fairly liberal direction, a direction against which conservatives tend to fight a rearguard action as technology and new ideas threaten their world views. I think this may be the point that phx8 is making. In some cases, the fight is to uphold certain standards of perceived quality, as with Jack’s argument against teaching Harriet Tubman at the expense of ignoring Washington. In other cases, conservatives argue against liberals that society is headed in a literally damnable direction.
Next, there’s the theory that we’re in some kind of existential funk, a funk that’s most obvious among those at the edges of the political spectrum. These people become movers and shakers during certain periods of history. They’re filled, as the poet Yeats says, with a kind of “passionate intensity” that affects the rest of the culture. During times like this, sometimes hard-core conservatism wins out, I would argue.
Finally, there’s the theory that the culture wars are largely fiction. Alan Wolfe, the author of One Nation, After All, based his book on interviews with hundreds of Americans from both red and blue states. In The Wilson Quarterly, he writes, “I concluded that, when it came to some of the deepest moral issues with which human beings concern themselves (obligations to the poor, respect for the religious convictions of people who adhere to faiths different from our own, welcoming immigrants to our shores), the people with whom I spoke had few fundamental disagreements. The culture war was alive and well inside the Beltway, I decided, but elsewhere we were one nation, struggling to find common ground.”
My own view is that most people are somewhere in the middle and are not “true believer” types. But in today’s electorate, the extremists have a lot of power to shape political destinies because they can swing a tight election in one way or the other. Therefore, the real culture war does not come down to things like political correctness or social programs. It comes down to strongly held religious beliefs, particularly on abortion. On one side are those who passionately believe that life begins (and therefore a soul emerges) at conception. On the other are people - probably on both sides of the aisle - who think abortion is a sad event but don’t want the U.S. federal government making decisions about this on their behalf.
For those who have a strongly held religious belief that a newly fertilized egg contains a human soul, there is no gray area. For others, there are various shades of gray. Therefore, the most serious aspect of the culture wars - the one most likely to cause something akin to civil war in the near future - is a conflict based on religious interpretations of how the universe works. This is a hard place to be in a society founded on religious freedom, including the freedom not to believe in a religion.
The Celts of the 1st Century BC are less interesting than the Romans of the same period
Really? The Romans didn’t seem to think so. What strikes you as inherently less interesting about them?
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 03:58 PMIt is also true that the history of Africa south of the Sahara is much less important than the history of Europe, which some of you will find offensive, but it is true.
Those who are descended from the groups living south of the sahara rather than from Europe may not agree with you on that.
Is it not, perhaps, fallacious to assume that elements of history must be equally important and interesting to all persons studying them, rather than assuming each person will relate to each historical event differently and on a personal level?
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 04:01 PMJarin:
“I think maybe that’s the kind of dialogue that would be more constructive than accusations of ignorance and bigotry, or accusations of sin and immorality.”
Respectfully, I’ve got to tell you Jarin, I’m not really interested in having a dialogue with folks who have the kind of absolutist views that automatically make me less of a human being in their eyes — and I honestly don’t feel I NEED to.
The Constitution already settled these issues — and they are the ones who are fighting so hard to change that document in order to get things the way they want them, and have the legal authority to deny American citizens their rights and freedoms based upon the tennants of religion.
On the other hand, no doubt I’d fight on their behalf if our government began dictating to religious people and making laws that infringed upon their beliefs, for that is none of the governments business or concern.
In other words, just like Thomas Jefferson spelled out to us, I believe that the complete separation of church and state is the only thing that makes sense for America.
Posted by: Adrienne at May 14, 2005 04:46 PMRespectfully, I’ve got to tell you Jarin, I’m not really interested in having a dialogue with folks who have the kind of absolutist views that automatically make me less of a human being in their eyes — and I honestly don’t feel I NEED to.
It sounds to me like your views make them less human in your eyes, or something functionally equivalent. If you’re not willing to enter a real dialogue with them on these issues, rather than simply and self-righteously asserting your correctness and their ignorance, why should they enter into such a dialogue with you rather than dismissing your thoughts as simply as you have dismissed theirs? It seems impossible to persuade someone if you are not willing to both talk with and listen to them in return.
The Constitution already settled these issues — and they are the ones who are fighting so hard to change that document in order to get things the way they want them, and have the legal authority to deny American citizens their rights and freedoms based upon the tennants of religion.
As much as we may not like it, it’s a fact that when that document was written no one living could possibly have imagined protection of “sodomists” to come under laws protecting the freedom of religion or other civil rights. Times have changed greatly, and it is only an interpretation of the constitution that benefits from fresh knowledge and understanding which allows any of us to see it as a civil rights issue at all. Not everyone, however, agrees with that interpretation. If we automatically disregard their views in total as without merit, then we might as well disregard those of Jefferson himself, who supported punishments such as castration for sodomy.
On the other hand, no doubt I’d fight on their behalf if our government began dictating to religious people and making laws that infringed upon their beliefs, for that is none of the governments business or concern.
According to them, the government already is. One they often cite is the idea, supposedly promoted in schools, that homosexuality is acceptable and normal rather than a sin. It’s easy to dismiss such claims, as we perceive this as them trying to indoctrinate their children into intolerance rather than a truly religious issue, but they do have a point that their beliefs in this area are far from respected in many cases. And are we there, fighting for them? Are you?
Or does this principle only work when those beliefs are ones we agree with, or at least feel neutral towards?
In other words, just like Thomas Jefferson spelled out to us, I believe that the complete separation of church and state is the only thing that makes sense for America.
I tend to agree, but the question as ever is where do we draw the lines? What beliefs are solely religious, and what beliefs are not? Can “thou shalt not kill” be used as the basis for political movement against the death penalty and war, or would that be eroding the separation? Can laws even be made against killing, or is that the imposition of religious-based morality? There are other cultures, some with quite sophisticated systems of law, which did not outlaw killing someone so long as you could pay the honor price for doing so. If you could, fine, you were free to go. If you couldn’t, your family could choose to pay it for you. If they couldn’t or wouldn’t, you could be expelled from the clan, and left to either be a slave to the family of the one you killed or killed by them without repercussion. Very clearly, making laws against killing is not universal then, and is in fact a moral judgment. Should we abandon them, then, as imposed morals that should rightly be a personal religious choice? The issues really aren’t simple, and the other side has many points that it would do us good to listen to and truly discuss.
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 05:47 PMJarin:
“It sounds to me like your views make them less human in your eyes, or something functionally equivalent.”
Not at all. I feel they are entirely entitiled to their beliefs, however, I am angered by the fact that their religion dictates to them the premise that to give you and I the same respect would mean they aren’t following in the “correct path”.
This is what I mean by not being interested in having a dialogue with them — because why should we frustrate ourselves when faced with minds that have already been so completely made up?
“If you’re not willing to enter a real dialogue with them on these issues, rather than simply and self-righteously asserting your correctness and their ignorance, why should they enter into such a dialogue with you rather than dismissing your thoughts as simply as you have dismissed theirs?”
Look, you are the one using words like ignorance and bigotry, not me. I feel they should be able to think whichever way they want to. I just don’t think they have the right to make laws designed to take away someones rights just because they don’t like them or their lifestyle.
And again as far as the dialogue goes, why is it up to us to have to make all the concessions to them since America has always been a secular country? They’re the ones trying to change the Constitution, not us.
“It seems impossible to persuade someone if you are not willing to both talk with and listen to them in return.”
We are talking about fundamentalists here aren’t we? Just checking, because I certainly am.
“As much as we may not like it, it’s a fact that when that document was written no one living could possibly have imagined protection of “sodomists” to come under laws protecting the freedom of religion or other civil rights. Times have changed greatly, and it is only an interpretation of the constitution that benefits from fresh knowledge and understanding which allows any of us to see it as a civil rights issue at all.”
Privacy has long been protected by the fourth amendment — it is “the right of the people to be secure in the their persons and houses”, therefore, no one has ever actually had the right to be speculating over who was having sodomy, or not having sodomy.
“Not everyone, however, agrees with that interpretation.”
Because of their religion, but that isn’t supposed to be a reason our government could deny our citizens their privacy.
“If we automatically disregard their views in total as without merit,”
All men are created equal. Their views have merit to them, and our views have merit to us. The words Liberty and Freedom mean we’re allowed to live our lives as we see fit, not within parameters drawn by others. Within the law, of course.
“then we might as well disregard those of Jefferson himself, who supported punishments such as castration for sodomy.”
Could you give a link to back up this assertion?
“According to them, the government already is. One they often cite is the idea, supposedly promoted in schools, that homosexuality is acceptable and normal rather than a sin.”
Whether perceived as right or wrong, homosexuality is a fact of life. If they wish to live in a bubble of denial about it’s existence that is their choice, but it is not their choice impose mandated discrimination anywhere. And do you how I know that is true? Because all men are created equal.
“It’s easy to dismiss such claims, as we perceive this as them trying to indoctrinate their children into intolerance rather than a truly religious issue, but they do have a point that their beliefs in this area are far from respected in many cases.”
If they wish to have homosexuality treated like it is an abomination, then will have to send their kids to religious schools, or home school them but they don’t have the right to mandate that idea in the public schools. Otherwise, it means they are against the ideas of establishing justice and insuring domestic tranquility, so they’re going to have to go it on their own.
“And are we there, fighting for them? Are you?”
Yes. I belong to the ACLU and my dues and donations help pay for the defense of all people who feel their constitutional rights are being wrongly violated. Contrary to what you will read here according to rightwingers, this does indeed include the right of religious freedom and the right not to suffer religious discrimination where applicable by our laws.
“the question as ever is where do we draw the lines?”
Often don’t get to draw them — the courts do. This is why the separation of church and state MUST BE maintained — or we are going to end up with a religious state in direct violation of the Constitution.
“What beliefs are solely religious, and what beliefs are not?” Can “thou shalt not kill” be used as the basis for political movement against the death penalty and war, or would that be eroding the separation? Can laws even be made against killing, or is that the imposition of religious-based morality? There are other cultures, some with quite sophisticated systems of law, which did not outlaw killing someone so long as you could pay the honor price for doing so. If you could, fine, you were free to go. If you couldn’t, your family could choose to pay it for you. If they couldn’t or wouldn’t, you could be expelled from the clan, and left to either be a slave to the family of the one you killed or killed by them without repercussion. Very clearly, making laws against killing is not universal then, and is in fact a moral judgment. Should we abandon them, then, as imposed morals that should rightly be a personal religious choice?”
Please read the Declaration and the Constitution again. Everything we need to live civilly and in peace with each other is laid out quite clearly there. And it was not done using terms and conditions which came directly from christianity, otherwise that might well have easily been done. No, instead, they used general terms, secular terms in giving us the roadmap to America’s PEACEFUL future.
“The issues really aren’t simple, and the other side has many points that it would do us good to listen to and truly discuss.”
I am willing to begin listening to them as soon as they stop trying to change the Constitution so that their religion can dictate what is right and wrong for this country.
Posted by: Adrienne at May 14, 2005 07:17 PMJarin
You provided a perfect example of why PC is a bad thing. You say that those who are descended from people south of the Sahara might not agree with me. This is the PC racism that implies that you must study or support what you are today. Why should it matter where your ancestor come from.
My favorite book of philosophy is the Tao te Ching – I am not Chinese.
I studied the Classics of Greece and Rome – I am not Greek or Italian/Hispanic
I believe English history is essential to understanding the U.S. – I am not English.
I have studied Japan as a successful modernization – I am not Japanese.
I have recently been very interested in Botswana’s relatively successful transition from colonialism – I am not Botswanan.
And I think there are important lessons to be learned from Easter Island’s collapse – I am not Polynesian.
As free people with free will, we should be most interested in those things we judge as valuable and good. We are also constrained by what is available. My “own people” were illiterate Barbarians when the Chinese were reading the Tao and the Greeks were inventing the concept of history. I really can’t usefully study them to any great extent. Should I then limit myself to the history of the ancient Slavs and pretend they are more important than the Romans because I share more DNA with them? No. Look to the best examples.
BTW
The Celts are less important in the 1st Century than the Romans. If you move 500 year in the future, arguably the center of W. civilization is in Celtic Ireland. At that time the Celts are more interesting than the Romans. We don’t have to stick with the home team or pretend they are all equally valuable.
You also must know that all people are so ethnically mixed up that staking out historical territory is meaningless in any case. We all are literally cousins.
The links you requested:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Jefferson0136/Works/Vol02/HTMLs/0054-02_Pt07_1779.html
Are these sources acceptable to you and sufficient as proof of my assertion regarding Jefferson?
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 07:31 PMJack:
You provided a perfect example of why PC is a bad thing. You say that those who are descended from people south of the Sahara might not agree with me. This is the PC racism that implies that you must study or support what you are today. Why should it matter where your ancestor come from.
Because of the simple fact that if the people south of the sahara had never existed, those who were descended from them would never have existed. Thus, they would probably consider those people more important than European peoples without whom they would still exist. It is also a simple fact that many people are interested in the cultures and bloodlines they sprung from… look at the number of people interested in genealogy. It’s a powerful tool towards identifying with a group enough to become interested in studying them.
My favorite book of philosophy is the Tao te Ching – I am not Chinese. I studied the Classics of Greece and Rome – I am not Greek or Italian/Hispanic I believe English history is essential to understanding the U.S. – I am not English. I have studied Japan as a successful modernization – I am not Japanese. I have recently been very interested in Botswana’s relatively successful transition from colonialism – I am not Botswanan. And I think there are important lessons to be learned from Easter Island’s collapse – I am not Polynesian.
And I’m sure these lines of study have been quite rewarding to you. But we are not talking about what one can learn useful lessons from… one can learn such lessons from almost any study of history… as I understood it, you were saying that european culture is more important to be learned, for everyone.
As free people with free will, we should be most interested in those things we judge as valuable and good. We are also constrained by what is available. My “own people” were illiterate Barbarians when the Chinese were reading the Tao and the Greeks were inventing the concept of history. I really can’t usefully study them to any great extent. Should I then limit myself to the history of the ancient Slavs and pretend they are more important than the Romans because I share more DNA with them? No. Look to the best examples.
Well, the most obvious problem with this idea is that by choosing to study what we deem as valuable and good, we are engaged in prejudgment. We come to the conclusion that something is more valuable and good than something else before we begin to study either, thus having no real basis for that judgment but our prejudices.
You also are not, of course, constrained to study the slavs of the same period as the romans, or the writing of the Way of Change. Ignorant barbarians may (I’ve never studied them as a group, i know very little about them) have been what they started as, but where did they end? What cultures did they learn from, and what did they develop on their own? Clearly, all cultures are not going to develop on the same timeline, but it is likely that they all have lessons they can teach to those who do identify with them. And for many, it is easier to identify with groups you have direct ties to.
BTW The Celts are less important in the 1st Century than the Romans. If you move 500 year in the future, arguably the center of W. civilization is in Celtic Ireland. At that time the Celts are more interesting than the Romans. We don’t have to stick with the home team or pretend they are all equally valuable.
Less important by what measure? They interacted with Rome, traded with them as equals, fought with them, and had complex systems of law and class and government. They were so respected by Rome that some of the celtic gods were even adopted to popular worship in rome. Epona, in particular. Three centuries before the date you cite, they had even invaded Rome and sacked the city. And of course, if they were so unimportant compared to Rome, why did Rome go to such lengths to conquer them in the first century BC?
You also must know that all people are so ethnically mixed up that staking out historical territory is meaningless in any case. We all are literally cousins.
There are many groups which do not see it that way. To throw ethnicity and culture out the window may be somewhat premature.
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 08:13 PMJack-
I think to study a culture with its importance in mind is to study it half blind.
We do not know all we need to know to have an accurate big picture of the rest of the world. We don’t have an absolute base for deciding the relative importance or unimportance of a culture.
I think it is better simply to study and let a picture of the place develop. You may find a world of difference between what you supposed was the truth about a culture’s importance, and what it actually was.
Any scholarship of value, I would submit, must allow us the opportunity to reevaluate our picture of the world, when the evidence calls for it. Neat conclusions can be nice, but they can often run afoul of messy reality.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2005 08:21 PMJarin,
“Are these sources acceptable to you and sufficient as proof of my assertion regarding Jefferson?”
They are indeed sufficient Jarin, and damn if that isn’t some disturbingly wacked shite he wrote there!
I have to admit, however it isn’t the first time I have been amazed when reading some of the things Jefferson had to say. It seems the man was capable of being brilliant and unusually level-headed about so many things, but then be equally capable (or guilty, if you will) of sounding like a typical man of his era.
Much as I enjoy reading such missives, I’m more than glad I was born in my own era.
Thanks for looking that up and sharing it with me.
Nothing to say about the rest of my comments? Have I offended you? Since we usually seem to be in agreement on this blog, I certainly hope I didn’t.
Cheers,
Adrienne
Jarin
Groups that do not see it my way are mistaken. I think we have to reject racism. The more we learn about DNA, the more we see that this is true. I know people still hold the old ideas, and I know I have to deal with them, but I don’t have to pretend they are correct. I also recognize that emotional attachment to a group is different from rational study.
There is nothing wrong with studying any particular group, but it does make sense to study the parts of history that are both accessible and important.
When you talk about coming out of Africa, you make my point. We study the first humans in Africa, because that is where we find them. Africa is the most important place in the Paleolithic age. It remains the continent with the most diverse DNA base to this day. (another nail in the racist coffin is that E. Africans are more closely related to Arabs than they are to W Africans.) It would be foolish of me to concentrate all my time on the small populations of Europe at that time. Africa was were the action was back then.
As a historian, you also have a problem of … well history. We pay more attention to people who write because we can know them better. Thousands of generations of preliterate people can pass and all we can know about them is the type of tools they used. We cannot even know how they made them. There is still dispute about how Stone Age men made hand axes. We can’t come to any conclusions about what they thought and what they valued except by inference of what they used. When people begin to write, we can begin to understand more about them. There are some interesting puzzles in Africa, such as who built the Great Zimbabwe, but without a contemporary written source the details are literally lost to history.
That is why it is less useful to study the Celts, my Slavic ancestors or most of the people of Africa. They didn’t write. What we know about them is what others have written and sometimes these guys were not friendly. We know the Celts through the Romans. We know the Slavs through the Germans and Byzantines and we know the Africans through European imperialists. In other words, the people who conquered them tell their story.
Do you like to hike? I walk in the mountains. A lot is going on all around. But it is all not equal. I want to follow the path that will reach my goal. Paths that lead into brambles are less interesting. There are probably more squirrels in the forest, but I am interested in the bears or rattlesnakes because they can affect me. If I was a PC hiker, I would follow all the paths indiscriminately and I would cautiously step around every time I noticed a squirrel or a chipmunk, since they are the equals of the rattlesnake or the bear. Sometimes you have to make choices.
Adrienne:
No, you haven’t. Actually, at the moment, I’m considering my reply and trying to keep from offending you with it. I set the rest of your post aside for further consideration while I was replying to those posts which were easier to address. I still have not decided how to reply to the rest of yours and, as it is nearing the time when I will need to head to bed so that I can get up in time for work tomorrow morning, I may not be able to get to it tonight. I’ll try, though. If it’s not up by 9:15, it probably won’t be up at all tonight. I need to be up by 3am for work tomorrow.
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 08:42 PMJack:
“Some idea of the vastness of the mass of the as yet untranslated Celtic literature may be had from the notes in books by Dr Douglas Hyde, J. F. Campbell, Alfred Nutt, and other specialists. In the National Libraries in Great Britain alone it is estimated that, if all the inedited MSS. were printed, they would fill at least twelve hundred or fourteen hundred octavo volumes.”
http://www.sundown.pair.com/Sharp/Lyra%20Celtica/introduction.htm
This is an example of how choosing what to study based on one’s preconceptions of the material, rather than actual study of it, may lead one to the wrong conclusions.
Posted by: Jarin at May 14, 2005 09:14 PM“No, you haven’t.”
Oh, good.
“Actually, at the moment, I’m considering my reply and trying to keep from offending you with it.”
Ha! :^) Not to worry. Although I’m really a sweetie, I’m also a rather tough cookie and not so easily offended.
“it is nearing the time when I will need to head to bed so that I can get up in time for work tomorrow morning, I may not be able to get to it tonight.”
No hurry. Go sleep on your thoughts. Peaceful Dreams! ‘^o zzzz
Posted by: Adrienne at May 14, 2005 09:31 PMJarin
Jarin
I am trying to make myself clear and I thought I did. Who you study depends on WHEN. As I wrote, in the Paleolithic, you would concentrate on Africa. 4000 BC you would look at the Mesopotamia or Egypt. In modern times, Europe would probably be the focus, than America and now we are moving our attention to Asia. Each place is interesting in its own right and a scholar of that region can find plenty to do. But most of us are not scholars or specialists. A society of specialists in narrow fields would have no common ground to discuss anything.
As I wrote, Celtic Ireland becomes very important in the 5th and 6th Centuries. There is plenty of Celtic literature, but from different times and/or not contemporary with some of the events we study. If you want to read about the Gallic Wars, for example, you have to look to the Latin texts.
My point is not to argue about the Celts or the Romans. My point is that we should study what is good and valuable where we find it. We should not try to balance our inquiry ethnically or racially. We did that in the racist past, and we should stop.
As for the original subject, I oppose PC thinking when it assigns value based on group identification. If I am looking for the ten most influential scientist, mathematicians or philosophers, I won’t first ask what the representation of various ethnic groups and I won’t care if they are all one group or all different. What I care about is what they said and did, not who their father or grandfather was.
Reed Sanders,
Another excellent post.
You’re rather new here, so let me just say welcome to Watchblog, and stick around, okay? :^)
“My point is not to argue about the Celts or the Romans. My point is that we should study what is good and valuable where we find it. We should not try to balance our inquiry ethnically or racially. We did that in the racist past, and we should stop.”
Good point, and well said, Jack.
I can’t believe I just wrote that… ;^)
Adrienne
When agreement is possible on principles, the rest is just commentary.
With few exceptions, the people on this blog are liberal in the classical sense when it comes to inquiry. I give you a hard time, but your posts are among those I most like to read.
Thanks very much for the welcome, Adrienne. Yes, I am rather new WatchBlog as well as to the blogging world in general. But I’ve quickly come to appreciate the beauty of having people with different viewpoints share them in an virtual meeting place like this. Congrats to all the participants for being willing to put the time and effort into arguing their perspectives. It makes me a bit better about America, which often strikes me as in deep trouble these days.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at May 15, 2005 12:03 PM
I was a Lib in younger days. Not now. I respect
their right to voice their opinions. They have
NO right to try to inflict them on others. I also
was an atheist. I didn’t go looking for God, he
found me. If we have to write “fine print” that
declares if it’s life only after it pops out. I
think were on a slippery slope. Who’s next. Who
writes the fine print.Who decides who lives or
dies.
Rin T T,
“If we have to write “fine print” that
declares if it’s life only after it pops out. I
think were on a slippery slope.”
The problem with this analogy in this situation is that the occurrence of one event does not make it harder to stop the next. If ever the need to terminate other “life” became a debate, it would be a debate unto itself. For instance, in the Terri Schiavo case, no one was talking about abortion because the reasoning behind the two were different. The slippery slope argument only works with things that are so very similar that it doesn’t require a change in debate style/points to be argued. If you have your reasons for being against abortions, great, I’m not surprised. But if the reasoning behind it involves the slippery slope, I’d be rather dissappointed…
Posted by: Zeek at May 15, 2005 11:02 PMJack:
“I give you a hard time, but your posts are among those I most like to read.”
:^)Thanks. But does this mean you like to read them simply because then you’ve the opportunity to give me a hard time?
Reed:
“It makes me a bit better about America, which often strikes me as in deep trouble these days.”
Yes, I know what you mean. In Watchblog you will still see people on the left side of the political spectrum being demonized and called Un-American and such, but I like to think this blog gives us a chance to explain our views to conservatives who otherwise might never mingle with folks with a differing point of view.
And there is always that slim chance that one of us might change someones opinion about something — or that they might change our own.
“There is still dispute about how Stone Age men made hand axes. We can’t come to any conclusions about what they thought and what they valued except by inference of what they used.”
Sorry Jack I came late to this discussion.
We don’t know how the pyramids were built and the Egyptians had a written language, as did the Sumarians, the Babylonians, and the Chinese.
Latin and South America also had great “cultures” in ancient times, but are barely a footnote in our history books.
The problem is that modern history, for the most part, was written by European Christians, and they found these cultures barbaric, and thus not worth mentioning in detail. Or written only from the first impressions of these cultures before they were crushed by the onslaught of the early explorers/conquers.
Most historians aren’t as diligent as you in looking up the facts of history.
The histories of this planets civilizations are fluid and must be updated regularly, as we learn more about them.
