If one reflects carefully on the left today, what Salman Rushdie says here is obviously true.
Extreme multiculturalism is not just multi-racialism. Multi-racialism as a principle is right. The view that a country should not discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour or race is entirely right and moral.
But culture is not race. So many cultural ideas are not biologically determined, and are flexible and changeable, even if no rational personal would deny that certain human traits and propensities are a complex mixture of biology and environment (e.g., height).
More cultural diversity is not necessarily a good thing for a society, if this means more extreme religious fundamentalism, parallel legal systems and the introduction of values that radically conflict with the core values of a secular Western society (e.g., theocracy, gender segregation, homophobia, female genital mutilation, misogyny, etc.).
As Rushdie says, extreme multiculturalism is cultural relativism. This is a very bad thing.
"Western values" are a Disney-esque invention of good vs. evil. Contrasting it with "fundamentalism" is absolute Orientalist nonsense, since the West has been funding and training militant fundamentalists as a central page of its playbook for most of a century -- whether using the Muslim Brotherhood to oppose Nasser, or Mujahideen to fight Soviets in Afghanistan (deposing a government that gave women equal rights, among other things), or Al Nusra in Syria today.
ReplyDeleteThe "West" was built on colonialism, religious bigotry, racism, slavery and war. You cannot discuss the historical trajectory or current existence of the former without the latter. Are we to conclude that those Western Values?
(1) first, the post is about how extreme multiculturalism is cultural relativism. Your rambling comment is hardly even relevant. You certainly haven't refuted. The fact that one can quote easily argue that colonialism as a cultural idea is inferior to the idea of non-colonialism and non-imperialism already shows how cultural relativism is rubbish.
Delete(2) whatever mistakes and immoral foreign polices the US or other Western nations have committed (and there are many) does not refute the fundamental point that not all cultural beliefs are equal.
(3) "The "West" was built on colonialism, religious bigotry, racism, slavery and war."
A lot of other civilisations have been built on "colonialism, religious bigotry, racism, slavery and war" or, even worse, like mass murder. E.g., the Mongol empire (whose mass murder was on an unbelievable scale). Other empires have had plenty of colonialism, religious bigotry, racism, slavery and war, e.g., Indian empires, Chinese empires, or the Ottoman empire.
Are you willing to condemn them?
Moreover, the West has abolished slavery, and the British empire did a lot to eliminate it. Formal European empires were given independence after WWII. Racism is anathema is most Western countries, certainly in the mainstream.
Most of the things you scream about -- at least in any substantive way -- are firmly in the past.
(3) "Are we to conclude that those Western Values? "
No. Clearly not.
Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of and from religion, a secular state, one legal system for all, human rights, civil liberties, and the welfare state -- these were the core of glorious Western values, though now many people who are non-Western also support them too. You sound like you hate them.
As for "Orientalism", this is just another branch of Postmodernist B.S. taken to ludicrous extremes.
DeleteNo rational person denies that there has been huge Western bigotry or racism against non-Western peoples.
But there has also been a plenty of tolerance, respect and even sympathetic interest in the non-West by Western people.
I recommend you read Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y., 2007.
I cannot reply in line it seems. Responding to Anonymous's screed.
Delete" colonialism, religious bigotry, racism, slavery and war."
Those are pretty universal. Are they currently westen *values* or just part of western (and all) *history*. I think the answer is clear. I would argue though that when you look at the ISIS boasts about all of them they are part of their *values*.
I want to make another point. I agree that the triumph of those values is a relatively recent thing, hard-won, and possibly fragile. Doesn't that make defending them even more important? If their hold on our society is tenuous -- and that might well be the case -- then isn't it *more* important to assert them, proclaim them, invigilate threats to them?
LK, I want to suggest something. If you post something like "killing babies is bad" you probably won't get much push-back. A few of your regulars will sneer silently at your imagined naivete perhaps, but you won't get a fight. But if you add any criticism of anyone other than Trump, such as "and the people who do it are bad" you will.
DeleteWhy?
I think I know and it goes to the heart of our disagreement about the Left, and politics in general.
For most people politics is not about policy. It is about identity, virtue-signalling, competing for a positional good.
One-upmanship.
I think you and I agree that whatever its history, and current failings, the modern democratic West has
built the most wealthy, most free, most scientific, most humane large-scale society ever.
Now what better way to signal your virtue, to establish your bona fides in your subculture, to compete for
your ascendency within it, and over those outside it, that to be enraged!, enraged I tell you!, enraged!!
about how inadequate that really is. Any fool can condemn Nazis. Any fool can praise mandela.
It takes a refined soul to see both the horror in disrespectful sushi (which the lumpen are blind to)
or the good in ISIS (which the lumpen are too prejudiced to see.)
"I think you and I agree that whatever its history, and current failings, the modern democratic West has built the most wealthy, most free, most scientific, most humane large-scale society ever."
DeleteInternally, in many Western states, yes.
Externally, I would maintain there are still many problematic things that certain Western states like the US or the UK do in the external Western world. However, clearly most Western states are not like this. E.g., countries like Switzerland, Denmark and New Zealand really are excellent on both counts.
I think whatever faults exist can be reformed and there is hope for a more moral foreign policy. Also, I am not so naïve as to believe that certain non-Western states if they greater power would not do things just as bad or even worse. I.e., there is plenty of evil in the non-Western world. It is stupid and hypocritical not to call it out
Problematic things? Of course. We don't do nearly enough against ISIS, which should be destroyed. We let the Afghans down, shamefully. We let the Iraqis down, shamefully.
DeleteI suspect we will not agree on a lot of this. :)
Yes, I condemn all empires. But that's irrelevant, since there hasn't been a Mongol empire in some time. Right now, we've just got the one.
DeleteI'm not here to argue that all cultural practices serve humanity equally well. However, holding up "Western values" in the abstract is really misleading, especially when Western imperialism has directly undermined many democratic movements the world over.
The abolition of de jure slavery is a good thing, yes. Of course, the fact that it existed in the first place, in part through the open advocacy of many key thinkers in the liberal tradition, is another story. Not to mention the de facto second-class status of Black people in America even into the present day (see "The New Jim Crow" for one discussion of this).
The things you claim as "the core of glorious Western values," in a substantive sense, are not really followed. That's the big issue I'm trying to raise. Your portrayal of these values is essentially idealist, abstracting away from actual historical circumstances.
No, I don't hate the principles you describe. Rather, I hate the actual injustices perpetrated in their name, and the self-satisfied fashion in which people seem to think we've achieved far more than we actually have, in the name of chauvinism. We argue principle against fact in order to turn half the world into some terrifying and backwards "other," when the West itself has had a direct hand in the creation of the very ideologies we so criticize. That's my beef in a nutshell.
(1) "I'm not here to argue that all cultural practices serve humanity equally well. "
DeleteIf you don't support cultural relativism then why didn't you say so in your original comment and give me some credit if you actually agree with me?
(2) "Yes, I condemn all empires. But that's irrelevant, since there hasn't been a Mongol empire in some time. "
lol... Then your screaming rant about the West is clearly invalid because we do not have slavery in the West anymore. As I also said, racism is anathema is most Western countries, certainly in the mainstream. I suspect like a lot of left-wing people you obsess over the US when the US actually isn't like most other Western countries.
(3) "Of course, the fact that it existed in the first place, in part through the open advocacy of many key thinkers in the liberal tradition, is another story. "
Wait, slavery has existed in nearly every civilisation, but it was the British empire -- a product of Western civilisation -- that took massive steps to abolish it all over the world.
Look at you. You won't even give credit where it is due.
What's all this about "screaming"? I don't think I even used an exclamation point. To each his own, though. Anyway, sorry if I've not given you due credit for agreeing slavery and war are bad.
DeleteThat said, you're beating up something that, if it even exists, is so marginal as to be practically nonexistent. I have never encountered someone who opines, on relativist grounds, that a society with slavery is equal to a society without slavery, etc. (Perhaps you can give an example along those lines?) Meanwhile, though, Islamophobic attacks are a real, quantifiable problem.
"I suspect like a lot of left-wing people you obsess over the US when the US actually isn't like most other Western countries."
Maybe. But it's easy to "obsess" on it when you live here and have personally witnessed some seriously vile acts.
Anyway, considering the rise of right-wing nationalism on your side of the pond, the assertion of "racism is anathema" may not hold the weight you think it does.
Regarding the last statement, the amount of racism in Europe is grossly exaggerated. What has happened is that there are populist right wing parties opposed to open borders and mass immigration, and a very great deal of popular support has arisen for this opposition, increasingly even on the left.
DeleteIt is not because most people are vile racists and suddenly started hating non-white skin colours; the reason is that open borders and mass immigration in Europe are catastrophic for economic and social reasons. If you support open borders and mass immigration, then you need to rationally defend it, not just smear everyone as racists.
"Anyway, considering the rise of right-wing nationalism on your side of the pond, the assertion of "racism is anathema" may not hold the weight you think it does."
DeleteIndeed. It's a pet peeve of mind that we hear so much from Europe and Canada (I am Canadian) about American racism. Well America is much more diverse. Inject a little racial diversity into Europe and see what happens. Just today there's a story about a riot in Holland, about refugees, that seems to be racially tinged.
Nonetheless, racism is definitely not a lauded value. It is the single most excoriated human failing in the modern west.
Also, Anonymous give yourself a name of some kind if you are going to continue commenting, because there are too many Anonymous commentators recently and it is difficult to keep track of exactly which Anonymous said what.
Delete"when the West itself has had a direct hand in the creation of the very ideologies we so criticize."
ReplyDeleteWell, you are conveniently vague -- so much harder to refute that way -- but if you mean ISIS then you are just woefully ignorant. This whole notion that the rest of the world somehow lacks its own agency, cultural reservoir, and history is just silly.
Actually the role of the US in the creation of ISIS has become much clearer recently. See, for example, this on the leaked 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency documents that predicted the rise of an "Islamic State," as "a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor)." It adds that "this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime." [Note: In the same doc, it identifies "Western countries" as part of said "supporting powers to the opposition."]
DeleteThat is, it's been seen as a strategic asset in the region since before it even existed. In much the same way, see Obama's remarks last year:
The reason, the president added, “that we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal] al-Maliki.” That only would have encouraged, he said, Maliki and other Shiites to think: “‘We don’t actually have to make compromises.’”
So, they're a handy lever to our interests, that we foresaw as the result of our flooding the region with guns and training contras -- to quote the first doc again, "ISI could declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."
And the fact that we're working with Al Nusra should be apparent enough at this point.
Yes, the hypocrisy and shameful realpolitik is well known and -- certainly in Syria -- constitutes a major failing of US foreign policy.
DeleteHowever, this does not prove that the US was completely responsible for what happened. And actually people now argue that to prevent the chaos in the region now the US should have stayed in Iraq and supported a moderate state of some kind. This is what conservatives now argue.
Who would've been that 'moderate government' that would prevented the rise of Daesh, LK? The Dawa Party that the US propped up from the beginning? The same Dawa Party that pledged open allegiance to Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution in the short window between Husayn's coup, and his war against Iran?
DeletePretending that US boots on the ground would've prevented the rise of Daesh also ignores what Scott Atran, who has done actual field research on Islamists from Morocco to Papa New Guinea, had noted about the US presence in Iraq-that it was overwhelmingly the primary motivator for those signing up for the Jihad. Why would this have magically changed as a result of the US fighting Daesh as opposed to other sunni militias?
The reason, the president added, “that we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal] al-Maliki.” That only would have encouraged, he said, Maliki and other Shiites to think: “‘We don’t actually have to make compromises.’”
DeleteThis is a good example of how even well-meant and justifiable policies of Western governments are twisted by anti-Western leftists into something sinister. Obama was trying to get a sectarian Shiite prime minister to treat the Sunni minority less harshly so they wouldn't want to ally themselves with ISIS. In retrospect, he was naive, but he certainly wasn't using ISIS as 'a strategic asset'. He wanted to defeat them as much as Maliki, but hoped it could be done without US military involvement. That's supposed to be an example of Western perfidy?
It's a mode of discourse that's repeated ad nauseam by the anti-Western left. Whenever an outrage occurs in the world, Western culpability is taken as axiomatic. Facts and motives may be twisted to any degree to illustrate this culpability.
Q6@December 18, 2015 at 10:39 AM
DeleteAsk the conservatives. I am not a conservative.
The Dawa Party that the US propped up from the beginning?
DeleteThe US never 'propped up' the Dawa Party. It won a plurality of votes in a free election. In any case, Maliki later split from the party to form his own 'State of Law' list. Iraq has its own internal politics and not everything that happened was because the US was pulling the strings.
Scott Atran has been proved wrong by events in Syria, where men signed up for Jihad without any American boots on the ground. They have been many Jihads in the history of Islam, most of which occurred before the USA existed.
LK: Apologies, I had thought that was an endorsement of the conservative position.
DeleteAnonymous: Propped up was a poor choice of words; however, I've never seen any indication that the US was opposed to Shi'a rule in Iraq in the aftermath of the toppling of the Husayn government, and was not supporting them over the Sunni until 2006. I'm more than willing to acknowledge that I may be incorrect about the level of support the Dawa Party received from the Bush administration following the toppling of the Husayn government, so if you have analysis that indicates the opposite, I'd be very much interested in reading it.
I don't recall ever claiming Iraq doesn't have it's own politics, or that the US orchestrated everything there. I don't believe my poor choice of words with "propped up" indicates either of those views you attributed to me. What I did point out was that US supported the Dawa Party, and Shi'a rule, well before Al Qaeda in Iraq, or Daesh, became a factor, and that this may indicate that our mishandling of Iraq played a rather key role in the circumstance that led to the rise of Daesh. Heck, even Cheney recognized this before 9/11 drove him insane, hence him rather accurately predicting what went down when we toppled the Husayn government in the CSPAN interview in '94 when he explained why we made the right decision by castrating Husayn, rather than toppling him.
I think you may have misunderstood why I brought up Atran's conclusions, because your counterpoints are not even remotely relevant to why I brought up Atran's research. Atran's claim is that the primary motivator for those joining the Jihad while there was a US troop presence in Iraq, was the US troop presence in Iraq. He bases this off his field interviews and experiments with Jihadists, at times done at the behest of the US state department; if you are claiming this is not the case, I'd be very interested to see what you're basing this off of. Further more, I brought this up as an indication that, rather than stabilizing Iraq by remaining (which LK accurately pointed out is a conservative claim), having American soldiers staying behind and fighting Daesh could very well have increased their pool of recruits, and strengthen their legitimacy. That seems a rather logical conclusion to reach from Atran's conclusions. How events in Syria, or there being numerous Jihads in history, disprove that claim, you'll have to explain to me.
I suppose I should also note that it's difficult to see Islamists in Syria becoming a major factor had the US and our allies not been so hellbent on removing Assad from power, by any means necessary. Similarly difficult to see them becoming a major factor without US allies in the region, namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar, assisting the Islamists against Assad...or, hell, it's difficult to see Salafism becoming a dominant theology without all the Saudi money dedicated to spreading this terrorist sect internationally. I do know that, in Libya, at least, the Obama administration making the boneheaded move of reversing the Bush administration's improving of relations with Qaddafi (one of Bush's better decisions in the aftermath of 9/11), and toppling him, seems to be a key factor (if not THE key factor) for understanding why Libya has become an Islamist hotspot.
Q6: I can't speak for the OP, but as someone who thinks it's fairly obvious that decades of US foreign policy in the region are a key contributor to the rise of Islamism as an ideology from the 80's until today, it seems like one in a long line of US missteps and blunders in the region. These go back decades; I suppose it's a testament to the ignorance of those on the left taking issue with LK's points that there's no mention of NATO cold war policy in the region during 60's and 70's, and the key role this played in Islamism winning out over other ideologies that made the mistake of leaning Soviet in the 60's and 70's.
"How events in Syria, or there being numerous Jihads in history, disprove that claim, you'll have to explain to me"
DeleteIt gives us reason to doubt the justifications given to Scott Atran by recruits to Jihadism for their behaviour. They did not lay down their weapons when US troops left Iraq, nor was a US troop presence required for them to turn to Jihadism in Syria. Fighting for a global caliphate does not require the presence of US troops, although the presence of such troops is certainly a major obstacle to that goal, which perhaps explains why they gave Scot Atran the disingenuous rationales that they did. Telling an American that they are only fighting because American soldiers are there makes perfect sense if they are trying to get rid of those troops and can sense a weakness of will in their adversary.
LK, i'm same anonymous who argued some weeks ago that truth relativism came to europe and USA from bolshevism. Now you're witnessing a living example of it.
ReplyDeleteI repeat my claim: the frustrated Marxists are frustrated only because they "need" to hide the crimes, the abuses and the very poor economic performance of soviet union.
Give yourself a handle or pen name. Can't keep track of dozens of Anonymous people.
Delete@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI am not included in Obama's "our". My views on the middle east are very differnt. In a nutshell: we are witnessing a long civil war within Islam between the back to basics crowd and modernizers. Our main goal should be to never give the back to basics side an easy win at our expense, because that bolsters their prestige. Try to help the moderates more or less from the sidelines, but if attacked beat the living shit out of the attackers, to deny them the prestige of triumph. Right now we must destroy ISIS.
@LK
Yes, stay and support a half-decent government, such as had been established in about 2010. Like the North did in the South -- and left too early. Whether you approved of the 2003 invasion or not is irrelevant to the question.
LK out of curiousity are you from Britain? I'm pretty sure what we call "multiculturalism" in the states (basically the "melting pot" concept where cultures go to the same schools, courts, etc. and blend together to take the best bits from each other, usually resulting in more conservative immigrant groups becoming increasingly socially liberal over generations) is the polar opposite of what Europe calls "multiculturalism" (segregation on the basis of culture, leading to immigrant groups becoming increasingly socially conservative over generations due to being cut off from any sort of social liberal influences).
ReplyDeleteThere is clearly (1) a good kind of multiculturalism and (2) a bad kind.
DeleteThe bad kind is when it degenerates into cultural relativism and even worse you get parallel societies (sometimes even with their own regressive legal systems!) where some people are simply segregated, poor, and isolated and where a minority in society is regressing to deeply illiberal values and even theocracy. This is a catastrophe.
The Left needs to get its act together and start seeing this as a serious problem. Needless to say, I do happen to think the West needs a reformed and moral foreign policy too, and big economic reform (abandonment of neoliberalism, return to full employment, etc).
Slavery as an institution is ubiquitous across most human societies. Observing that past Western societies had the institution of slavery as well does not present a critique of Western civilization. LK has pointed out how later Western societies abolished slavery both in their own countries as well as on foreign interventions. Unless one is going to argue this practice of abolition is common across many other societies throughout history, it makes sense to identify them as being accomplishments of Western societies or as representing a major part of "Western values." The Anonymous leftist commenter has not made an argument that abolition is ubiquitous across societies, and surely the commenter would not be stupid enough to argue that slavery was rare outside of Western societies.
ReplyDeleteInstead, this poster has criticized these ideas about Western values as "Disney-esque invention of good vs. evil." What then follows is a much worse caricature, cherry-picking about Western support of Muslim extremists abroad(as if one could not similarly cherrypick examples of Western opposition to Muslim extremists), and then makes a claim about how the West cannot be envisioned without "colonialism, religious bigotry, racism, slavery and war." Well, I already made the point about slavery, but one could also argue that colonialism, racism, or war are common throughout almost all societies(you can argue if you like the importance of religious bigotry).
Furthermore, how important slavery or colonialism for example were for Western development is one requiring careful interpretation of empirical data. The anonymous commenter seems to think bringing them up and suggesting we cannot literally envisage a world without them occuring, since we live in a world where they occured, is sufficient to imply that these things are of importance to the development of 'the West.' I will note that LK's post actually refered more specifically to a "secular Western society," but, in any case, simply mentioning that slavery existed in the past in Western countries or that Western countries have supported terrorist groups directly or indirectly does not contradict the idea that "theocracy, gender segregation, homophobia, female genital mutilation, misogyny" are incompatable with a "secular Western society." What LK said there is obviously true, at least about most of those things(maybe you can argue about homophobia in some secular western countries). To argue this point, I think anonymous is resorting to the same cultural relativism as LK is trying to critique, making false equivocations etc.
Also, yes it's true, the United States, and other Western countries have knowingly supported radical Muslim and other bad groups for unjustifiable reasons. However, the picture anonymous paints is one where U.S. or other Western countries are the only autonomous forces in the world, and it is a caricature. Since this post is already too long though, I won't expand much. But the point is obvious to anyone who reads the actual report that is linked in the article anonymous linked or who actually knows anything about Afghanistan(since he mentioned the Mujahideen), Iraq, or Syria, how crude and misleading anonymous' posts are. Every bad thing in the world must be because of Western interventions because anonymous' criticisms of the idea of "Western values" will have no significance otherwise. Certainly it is not true that the West created radical Islamic ideologies. That is an absurd claim, so I'll quote it just to make sure it's clear this claim has actually been made: "the West itself has had a direct hand in the creation of the very ideologies we so criticize."
Cool rant. Let's break this down.
DeleteFirst, the "ubiquity of slavery" abstracts away from qualitative distinctions between types of slavery throughout history, for one thing. The ones that happened to arise under the auspices of the West -- the sort linked to for-profit production in a world capitalist market -- is a particularly vicious variety that distinguishes itself also as having been conducted along racial lines. Indeed, many scholars argue this to be the birth of racism in its modern sense. In prior ages, "black and white" was not a meaningful distinction; you'd have Gauls here, Scythians there, and so on -- a more tribal and geographical reckoning of group differences.
One may well argue that abolition is indeed common across many cultures and times. The fact that the transatlantic trade resurrected it among cultures that had abolished it centuries prior is also relevant.
(as if one could not similarly cherrypick examples of Western opposition to Muslim extremists)
For someone so condescending, you missed this point hard. You think it's a notch in our favor that we support the ideology with one hand while combating it with the other? The fact is, outside of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the West has done far more to foster radical Islamist ideologies than virtually any Muslim nation. The major events that led to the birth of the largest and most virulent and organized sects are as I mentioned, as well as the invasion of Iraq. Further: Have you taken a look at what's been going on in Libya since we killed off Qaddafi?
Re: Colonialism: I'm not sure what you're attempting to compare against colonial England/France/Spain/US. Waving vaguely at world history is not useful, here.
these things are of importance to the development of 'the West.'
The West as we've known it for the past few centuries, certainly.
does not contradict the idea that "theocracy, gender segregation, homophobia, female genital mutilation, misogyny" are incompatable with a "secular Western society."
As idealized here, sure. But as I said, my exact problem is that idealism obscures the messy historical realities at hand. The concept of The West as Paragon of Virtue is pure idealist hogwash. Our failings are manifold, and we need to be aware of them and constantly work for a better society.
My concern is that the construct of "Western values" serves less as a set of goals to which we must continue to strive, and more as a coded stick with which to beat the non-Western world, resting satisfied on our laurels while lording imagined moral superiority over a world of savage Others.
anyone who reads the actual report that is linked in the article anonymous linked or who actually knows anything about Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria,
(i'm included in both of these categories btw)
Every bad thing in the world must be because of Western interventions
Ah, caricature. I knew it was coming; just wasn't sure when.
Certainly it is not true that the West created radical Islamic ideologies. That is an absurd claim, so I'll quote it just to make sure it's clear this claim has actually been made: "the West itself has had a direct hand in the creation of the very ideologies we so criticize."
I think it's clear I wasn't attributing sole causation to the West. The only question here is: "is funding a group a form of direct or indirect support for their ideology?" I'm sure reasonable people can disagree on which word better fits. If you think "indirect" works better, then fine, but I'm not here to argue semantics.
“One may well argue that abolition is indeed common across many cultures and times”
DeleteBullsh*t. You cite evidence that actually refutes you.
Of all the evidence of measures against slavery before the British Slavery Abolition Act of 1834, I count only 6 relate to non-Western cultures of 113 examples!!
Of the 6, they relate to India, China, and Japan, but none of these actually succeeded in permanently abolishing slavery:
(1) in the 3rd century BC, the Indian emperor Ashoka “abolishes slave trade and encourages people to treat slaves well but does not abolish slavery itself in the Maurya Empire, covering the majority of India” . So he didn’t actually abolish slavery at all.
(2) there were at least four attempts to ban slavery in China: they all failed or were revoked by later emperors.
(3) in 1590, Toyotomi Hideyoshi “bans slavery in Japan. However, it continued as a punishment for criminals.” In other words, slavery for many people continued.
All the other measures listed – over a hundred of them – are by Christian EUROPEANS.
E.g., just a sample:
1537: Pope Paul III forbids slavery of the indigenous peoples of the Americas as well as of any other new population that would be discovered, indicating their right to freedom and property. However, only Catholic countries apply it, and state that they cannot possibly enforce what happens in the distant colonies (Sublimus Dei).
1542: Spain enacted the New Laws, abolishing slavery of native Americans in 1542. But replaced it with other systems of forced labor such as repartimiento. Slavery of Black Africans was not abolished.
After the British Abolition of the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and British Slavery Abolition Act of 1834, slavery was abolished in the rest of the world mostly because the British and Europeans tended to put massive pressure on non-Western states to ban it, so here non-Western examples do not support your case.
All in all, your statement above is either (1) a dishonest and lying insult to the intelligence or (2) gross and embarrassing ignorance.
Either way, I am guessing you will not admit your error.
"The concept of The West as Paragon of Virtue is pure idealist hogwash."
DeleteExcept nobody here said the West was a "Paragon of Virtue". You just made this rubbish up as a straw man, but then you scream about straw man attacks on your own position.
Apologise for your straw man, and maybe you'll get more respect here.
"The ones that happened to arise under the auspices of the West -- the sort linked to for-profit production in a world capitalist market -- is a particularly vicious variety that distinguishes itself also as having been conducted along racial lines."
DeleteIf you knew your history, you would know this type of thing happened outside the West too: e.g., the medieval Middle East slave trade, where many black Africans were victims and there was the same vicious racially-based element to it, and where slaves were used in massive plantation based economic slavery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#Scope_of_the_trade
Europeans have also been victims of this slave trade:
"The North African slave markets traded also in European slaves. The European slaves were acquired by Barbary pirates in slave raids on ships and by raids on coastal towns from Italy to Spain, Portugal, France, England, the Netherlands, and as far afield as Iceland. Men, women, and children were captured, to such a devastating extent that vast numbers of sea coast towns were abandoned. Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis describes the white slave trade as minimized by most modern historians in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). Davis estimates that 1 million to 1.25 million White Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast), and roughly 700 Americans were held captive in this region as slaves between 1785 and 1815. 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's additional slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700. In the 1800s, the slave trade from Africa to the Islamic countries picked up significantly. When the European slave trade ended around the 1850s, the slave trade to the east picked up significantly only to be ended with European colonization of Africa around 1900"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#7th_century_to_20th_century
"You think it's a notch in our favor that we support the ideology with one hand while combating it with the other? "
DeleteNo. I hope that Ken B agrees.
"I'm not sure what you're attempting to compare against colonial England/France/Spain/US. "
DeleteOne example: Mongol imperialism. Probably the most brutal in human history in terms of the per capita death count. But it does not suit your anti-Western agenda to mention it.
Regarding slavery and America, the points made there are perfectly legitimate.
DeleteBut you ignore the fact that slavery was also abolished by the British empire in most of the world.
"No. I hope that Ken B agrees."
DeleteWell, I reject the hidden premise. We are not talking here the actions of some misguided government officials are we? I thought we were talking culture and cultural values. And I, and western culture, reject the values evinced by ISIS that we are discussing.
Even if some official decided to support what was then a marginal group for tactical reasons that would not constitute an endorsement of their values. Realpolitik is *not* an act of approval; that's why we call it cynical.
This is a debate I had with the Libertarians, especially David Henderson. I support Lend-Lease. I think we did the right thing supplying the Russians in WWII. I am about as firm an anti-communist as you can get, and I don't endorse Stalin. I endorse beating Hitler.
But in short, I agree LK. Supporting these groups, if we did, was a bad thing and nothing to boast of. But it's irrelevant to the point under discussion.
This is a pretty amusing discussion in one sense (I have a mordant sense of humour). Does anyone here know the origin of the word slave?
DeleteYeah, "slave" is derived from the same root as the word "Slav": it refers to the fact that white medieval Europeans were enslaving other white medieval Europeans (the Slavs) for many centuries.
DeleteWhere is all this aggression coming from? I thought we had reached more or less of an understanding above. (And why are you not holding "11111" to the same exacting standard?)
DeleteAll in all, your statement above is either (1) a dishonest and lying insult to the intelligence or (2) gross and embarrassing ignorance.
Excuse me. I gave examples of global efforts to abolish slavery both in and out of the West, in support of same claim. Yes, many more items in there focus on the West, I'm guessing because the contributors are more familiar with it. Meanwhile, many other examples go without mention -- numerous autonomous societies of West Africa that independently rejected slaveholding, Cyrus the Great of Persia, etc. -- that all long predate 1834.
I'm not denying the importance of the acts you mention, as they've been historically the most successful and broadly effective such efforts. The success of the effort does not owe to some unique moral impulse of the West, but to the historically conditioned power and standing it enjoyed at the time. And I have no problem whatsoever tipping my hat to this very positive step, just as I condemn the extractive and inhumane practices that nevertheless persisted in colonies.
So please stow talk of "gross and embarrassing ignorance," such is uncalled for.
Except nobody here said the West was a "Paragon of Virtue". You just made this rubbish up as a straw man, but then you scream about straw man attacks on your own position.
It's by no means a straw man, since this is the effect of our rhetoric, whether or not its perpetrators mean it that way. Think critically about it: To what should we contrast this term? "Eastern Values"? What are some of these Eastern Values? Well, clearly, in order for the "Western" distinction to mean anything at all, they must be something different from "Eastern." And all the Western Values we discuss are basically positive, right?
So, are Eastern Values a distinct set of positives unrelated to Western Values, or are they something perhaps not-so-positive? Suddenly, the problematic nature of this extremely broad brush should become clear, I hope.
You yourself have spoken at length about how "racism is anathema," as though it's not alive and well in the West, when there is a massive and growing scholarly literature (to say nothing of the lived experience of those suffering from it) to support the existence of a systemic white privilege -- or even the simple fact that, since the harms of slavery were never remediated, the disparities in wealth and opportunity were perpetuated into later periods.
I'll apologize if it can be shown that I've misrepresented someone here. In this case, it appears that my own point was not understood, but I blame no one for this but myself, since, yes, I could have been clearer (as I hope I have been here). All the same, sorry for the confusion.
Saying racism is anathema is not the same as saying it's non-existent. Quite the opposite. Popes don't issue bulls against heresies no-one ever entertained. LK's claim is that currently it is almost universally accepted here that racism is a bad thing. The only people who openly dissent are those who see themselves as overtly not conforming to the norm, and they complain about the pressure to conform.
DeleteI think you will agree that 16th Century Germany was a religious place, and a Christian place. But there were unbelievers, and heretics, and Jews. But the culture disapproved of them. So citing the existence of non-compliance does not disprove the existence of the norm.
Wasn't expecting more posts, but I'll just add that (1) the Mongol empire was a contiguous region that did not have colonies in the same way that colonial empires did and (2) some colonial exterminations have been every bit as brutal as acts committed by the Mongol empire, in some cases even drawing direct comparison.
DeleteBut I believe you misunderstand my point; I don't bring this up as part of an anti-West agenda, but merely anti-imperialism during a stage in history in which the West is the chief beneficiary of imperialism.
The fact some have difficulty separating these is, I think, an important part of the problem. I live in the West and love it quite well, but I also don't whitewash its problems (past or present) and insist that we hold ourselves to an ever-improving humanitarian standard. Is this so wrong? If so, how?
(1) on slavery, no, you have not proven your case at all. You say that Cyrus the Great of Persia abolished slavery. I am unaware of any evidence that he did any such thing. Where is your evidence?
Delete(2) "The success of the effort does not owe to some unique moral impulse of the West, but to the historically conditioned power and standing it enjoyed at the time. "
No, other empires had major power in the world, such as Indian empires, Chinese empires, and Muslim empires, but none of them succeeded in abolishing slavery. Though it was not unique, there was a "moral impulse of the West" that did have role here.
(3) "It's by no means a straw man, since this is the effect of our rhetoric, whether or not its perpetrators mean it that way. "
No switch the discussion to other people and not the people on this blog to whom you were responding in a dishonest trick.
(4) "Well, clearly, in order for the "Western" distinction to mean anything at all, they must be something different from "Eastern." "
Bullsh*t. Even if other non-Western societies had the same core values as the best ones we have, we could easily say: "our core values are the same as theirs!" but they would not stop being our values.
(5) "You yourself have spoken at length about how "racism is anathema," as though it's not alive and well in the West"
False. I implied no such thing. That it is "alive and well" in some small minority does not mean it is official policy of governments nor anathema in our general culture. In fact, "racist" is one of the worst insults you can throw, and I am sure you well know it's true.
"some colonial exterminations have been every bit as brutal as acts committed by the Mongol empire, in some cases even drawing direct comparison."
DeleteEvidence? The Mongols when they sacked cities engaged in straightforward mass murder on a regular, freqeunt and massive scale.
"I live in the West and love it quite well, but I also don't whitewash its problems (past or present) and insist that we hold ourselves to an ever-improving humanitarian standard. Is this so wrong? "
DeleteNot at all. It is absolutely admirable.
It is what all decent people should do.
But it is no excuse for sloppy history and failure to see that plenty of evil came out of and continues to come out of the non-Western world.
Wait. Contiguous matters? Rome was not an empire? Darius not an emperor? Won't Chinese historians be surprised.
Delete(1) on slavery, no, you have not proven your case at all. You say that Cyrus the Great of Persia abolished slavery.
DeleteIn the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. This was some time ago.
Though it was not unique, there was a "moral impulse of the West" that did have role here.
"Unique" was the important word. If you omit it, then you change my whole meaning. Either way, it seems we agree here.
No switch the discussion to other people and not the people on this blog to whom you were responding in a dishonest trick.
...???
we could easily say: "our core values are the same as theirs!" but they would not stop being our values.
But surely you see that in this universal case, "Western" becomes meaningless. It's like taking "having a nose" and declaring it a "white" trait. Yes, it's technically accurate, but inherently misleading. It puts me in mind of "the Fairsley difference".
But it is no excuse for sloppy history and failure to see that plenty of evil came out of and continues to come out of the non-Western world.
Where did I ever make the claim that the non-Western world is somehow pure? My point is to remove the shoe of idealist abstractions, not to stick it on a different foot.
Wait. Contiguous matters? Rome was not an empire? Darius not an emperor? Won't Chinese historians be surprised.
The discussion pertained to colonies and colonial empires in the specific.
Evidence? The Mongols when they sacked cities engaged in straightforward mass murder on a regular, freqeunt and massive scale.
There are so many examples I scarcely know where to begin. I suppose I could start with the Herero genocide? Or the Congo under King Leopold II? Or the extermination of Native Americans? Or the Holocaust? Or even many, many other less well-known examples. Scotland and Ireland stood at the receiving end of numerous atrocities.
"The English, led by the Duke of Cumberland, defeated the Scots and began one of the worst persecutions of a nation known to history, earning the title ‘Butcher’ Cumberland for their leader. The Scottish survivors were chased from the field of battle and slaughtered. For two days the wounded and dead of the Scottish army lay where they had fallen, guarded by English soldiers so that no medical or burial parties could get to them. Looting was officially organised and £5 was paid for the head of every ‘rebel’ brought to Major-General John Huske, the English Commander at Fort Augustus. Towns and villages were razed to the ground, people slaughtered wholesale and those that managed to escape massacre were imprisoned, executed or transported."
- Peter Berresford Ellis and Seumas Mac a’Globhaim, "The Scottish Insurrection of 1820"
"[Tudor warfare], as conducted by Carew, by Gilbert, by Pelham, by Mountjoy, was was literally a war of extermination. The slaughter of Irishmen was looked upon as literally the slaughter of wild beasts. Not only the men, but even the women and children who fell into the hands of the English, were deliberately and systematically butchered. Bands of soldiers traversed great tracts of the country, slaying every living thing they met. The sword was not found sufficiently expeditious, but another method proved much more efficacious. Year after year, over a great part of Ireland, all means of human subsistence were destroyed, no quarter was given to prisoners who surrendered, and the whole population was skilfully and steadily starved to death. The pictures of the condition of Ireland at this time are as terrible as anything in human history."
-William Lecky, "A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. II"
Shall I keep going?
(1) "In the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. This was some time ago."
DeleteWhere? The is no convincing historical evidence that Cyrus abolished slavery, and I have studied this period. You are wrong.
Maybe Cyrus (at most) freed some Jewish slaves or others, but this a very different from what you are claiming.
Probably you are referring to a clearly false and incorrect translation of an ancient source called the "Cyrus cylinder":
"A false translation of the text – affirming, among other things, the abolition of slavery and the right to self-determination, a minimum wage and asylum – has been promoted on the Internet and elsewhere"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder
Conclusion: your whole original point above was this:
"One may well argue that abolition is indeed common across many cultures and times."
No. Successful abolition seems very rare. None of the major non-Western empires did it. Only a Western empire successfully abolished it and actually used its power to make many other states also do so.
"But surely you see that in this universal case, "Western" becomes meaningless. "
DeleteNo, it does not. One can say that Western or Eastern values happen to be the same. The piffle about having noses is laughable. Having a nose is not like having a value.
I still await a reply to my question. If these moral advances are recent and hard won does that not make their defense more important?
DeleteAn amusing game is being played. ISIS has a short history and limited size. It's daily ubiquitous crimes are compared to events from centuries ago over a vast landmass. Something you do every chance you get everywhere you go is more representative of your cultural values I think than cherry picked examples from a far vastly population of actions. More women are killed in Canada each year than were killed by Richard Speck. Canada is not Richard Speck writ large.
Maybe Cyrus (at most) freed some Jewish slaves or others, but this a very different from what you are claiming.
DeleteAccording to the reference in the very source you cite, he DID order the release of his own followers. But it appears you are correct to say as it was not a universal declaration as such, as the world was led to believe.
I concede this point, so let me rephrase my overall argument:
The desire to abolish slavery has existed at numerous points in numerous societies virtually the entire world over, and numerous initiatives have accomplished this in their particular contexts. However, only -- as you and I clearly both are saying -- has the West seen such initiatives correspond to the power to enact it on a global scale.
From this it follows that it is not a *uniquely* Western *value*, which connects to my point about the dangers of arrogating an entire virtue as such.
The piffle about having noses is laughable.
Only if my point did not come across. If the analogy is not similar enough for your tastes, then let us use one from the social realm: It is like saying "developing architecture" is a "Chinese" trait.
It begs the question either way, and I have taken the time to even spell out said question for you. We can nitpick the specifics of how to better communicate the point, but said point is, it contributes to ethnocentrism and chauvinism.
I still await a reply to my question. If these moral advances are recent and hard won does that not make their defense more important?
Yes.
Something you do every chance you get everywhere you go is more representative of your cultural values I think than cherry picked examples from a far vastly population of actions.
You're arguing against me as though I'm using a very different level of abstraction than I actually am. I'm talking about the role of genocidal behavior in colonialism, not Western history per se. This relationship is consistent.
(Plus, the ISIS comparison, to say nothing of the charge of cherry-picking, is further complicated by the fact that its entire existence has been spent in a state of active, organized warfare.)
Anyhow, while the West has been the chief exponent of colonialism, that's a separate point that only need be considered in relation to what I am arguing is a whitewashed construct.
"The desire to abolish slavery has existed at numerous points in numerous societies virtually the entire world over, "
Deletelol... utter bullsh*t. Nothing you cite has proven this. What you show is some limited attempts to either curb the slave trade or slavery in a very non-Western few societies, nearly always unsuccessful. In fact, the original link actually constitutes much evidence against your view.
"Anyhow, while the West has been the chief exponent of colonialism, "
DeleteThis is again utter rubbish. What about the aggressive, violent and large empires of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians (e.g., the Persian invasions of Greece, c. 490 and 480-79 BC), Arabs, Mongols, and Chinese? China today still controls the territory of the former Manchu empire, with many subject peoples.
What about the Ottomans?
Deletelol... utter bullsh*t. Nothing you cite has proven this. What you show is some limited attempts to either curb the slave trade or slavery in a very non-Western few societies, nearly always unsuccessful. In fact, the original link actually constitutes much evidence against your view.
DeleteHow on earth can you claim this? We've literally discussed numerous examples throughout history in the span of this very conversation. Is there some more exact numerical definition of "numerous" you're looking for? Or are you just pulling my leg?
What about the aggressive, violent and large empires
This is interesting. Why are they "aggressive, violent" here? I feel you're doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing -- painting with too broad and disparaging a brush.
As for the examples you've given, to my knowledge only the Assyrians had "colonies" per se -- trading ports, mostly, and certainly not a global order of subalternity, and even then not in over 3,000 years+. So I'm not sure many will agree that they're a better contender for "chief exponent of colonialism."
What about the Ottomans?
Again, does "chief" fit? Doubtful; never pursued overseas colonies, and ultimately unraveled amid struggles between imperialist powers, which sorta excludes it from the top-dog spot in and of itself.
I dunno, man. I took it with some grace when you corrected me, earlier. Why is this not a two-way street?
(1) "We've literally discussed numerous examples throughout history in the span of this very conversation."
DeleteYou have done no such thing. Your Cyrus example failed. The West African ones were not even specified and probably came the period after 1800 when the UK was pressuring them to abolish slavery, and so don't even count.
That leaves you with 6 relating to India, China, and Japan, but none of these actually succeeded in permanently abolishing slavery:
(1) in the 3rd century BC, the Indian emperor Ashoka “abolishes slave trade and encourages people to treat slaves well but does not abolish slavery itself in the Maurya Empire, covering the majority of India” . So he didn’t actually abolish slavery at all.
(2) there were at least four attempts to ban slavery in China: they all failed or were revoked by later emperors.
(3) in 1590, Toyotomi Hideyoshi “bans slavery in Japan. However, it continued as a punishment for criminals.” In other words, slavery for many people continued.
In your dishonesty mind, these rare examples suddenly become "numerous examples". Give up. You lost on this issue.
"What about the Ottomans?"
DeleteContiguous. Contiguous doesn't count!
Gets the Aztecs off the hook too.
The first thing you see when you enter Westminster Abbey, more or less the sanctum sanctorum of what remains of the British Empire, if you look down, is the burial place of William Wilberforce. He was placed there by that empire.
(2) oh, so by colonialism you mean large-scale immigration and settlement. Yes, the West has done a lot of this, mainly in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. However, in the rest of the world Europeans remained a small minority even at the height of imperialism, e.g., in Africa, South Asia, East Asia and the Middle East.
DeleteIf I'm just trying to illustrate "attempts," as in a sign of "desire," then it doesn't matter that they failed. Please stop accusing me of dishonesty while disregarding scope of my remarks. If lobbing such insults is more important to you than civil debate, then you can help yourself to the last word, and I'll take my traffic elsewhere.
Delete(2) oh, so by colonialism you mean large-scale immigration and settlement.
Yes, settler colonialism is certainly one sort, though not the only one. I'm not sure how my attempts to communicate the term are not working. I recommend taking a look at this.
Contiguous. Contiguous doesn't count!
This is uncalled for, Ken. Please stop misrepresenting my argument. "Contiguous" is not necessarily non-colonial. But empirically most colonial empires have not been. If my use of the word above offends, then just ignore it.
Ken B, the 'contiguous' thing is called 'the saltwater fallacy'. It's a way of nurturing a special hatred for whitey while ignoring the conquests and colonisations of the brown, black and yellow races.
Deletehttp://psallitesapienter.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/salt-water-fallacy.html
The first known act of colonial conquest in human history was when the black Cro-Magnons replaced the white Neanderthals in Europe. It was also one of the most successful, as there is very little Neanderthal DNA left in modern Europeans. Perhaps they inherited their own imperialist tendencies from their African ancestors!
First Anon
DeleteYour contiguous argument is special pleading. It richly merits scorn.
And your justification is hogwash. Most conquest has involved contiguous domains. Ask any neigh our of the Romans, Chin, Moghuls, Aztecs, Syrians, Russians, Ottomans, Algonquins, Sioux, ... Need I go on?
I think the discussion in these comments is highly divergent from what is the topic actually raised.
ReplyDeleteSome context.
Rushdie published a novel many years ago. It became highly controversial solely for one phrase, and the author received death threats.
His book would not be published today, because no publisher wishes this reaction.
This is due to "extreme multiculturalism". Why? People no longer merely wish to avoid offending certain ethnic groups. They want to avoid offending **murderous extremists** among those ethnic groups.
In short, multiculturalism has reached the point that you have to consider accomodating people whose views would be considered reprehensible in civilized society.
This has nothing to do with Western imperialism in the Third World.
"for-profit production in a world capitalist market"
ReplyDeleteThis LK is a Chomskyian move. Oooo, nasty "profit" makes it soooo much worse! Has anyone ever owned a slave for anything BUT "profit"? Rape I suppose. (Is that supposed to be less odious?) The whole purpose of owning a slave is to steal his labour.
""for-profit production in a world capitalist market"
DeleteThis LK is a Chomskyian move. "
No, Ken B, this is a classic **Marxist** move.
Chomsky might well agree, but he's not the inventor of this hatred of capitalism or the profit motive. That honour belongs to Marx.
OK, I agree. It's typical of Chomsky, but tactic goes way, way back.
DeleteI believe sex WAS the main motive for the Arab slave trade, in that most of the slaves were female, and female slaves fetched a higher price than male ones. The Umayyad Caliphs preferred fair-skinned blond concubines, so racism (of a positive type?) was involved. Black female slaves were also raped by European men, but this was less common in societies where polygamy and concubinage were not lawful. Probably, the Arabs were more sexist than racist, while the Europeans were more racist than sexist.
DeleteGiven this history, it IS a huge achievement that mainstream western opinion is today so strongly opposed to racism. As for sexism in the Muslim world, the Turks and the Kurds seem to have made more progress than the Arabs.
The Kurds are definitely the most progressive group in the region. Turks are a bit more debatable, although Ataturks brilliant leadership has certainly contributed to modernizing the Turks in contrast to the Arabs.
DeleteHowever, it should be noted that Ibn Taymiyyah, the Islamic theologian whose views provide much of the theological justification for Salafism, was a Kurd, not an Arab.