PDA

View Full Version : White Contempt for Other Cultures Can't Be Sustained


Dialectic
Feb 22nd, 2006, 01:03 AM
This article is a brilliant description of just what's happening ethnically in the world at the moment, something many oblivious white people don't realize or appreciate. If only more were like this author.

To understand the nature and prevalence of white privilege, please read this article:
http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=3612

The actual title of the piece below uses the term "Europe's" as opposed to "White," but both terms apply. This article could very easily describe America.

This is karma: cause and effect. Individuals have karma, nations have karma, races have karma.

You who have grown rich and prosperous from the sins of your forebears and the blood and tears of your slaves, take note. Your sins have come back to haunt you. A billion colored ghosts are circling above your heads, screaming with one voice:

"Dues must be paid."

The 44s are just the beginning.

Europe's contempt for other cultures can't be sustained

A continent that inflicted colonial brutality all over the globe for 200 years has little claim to the superiority of its values

Martin Jacques
Friday February 17, 2006
The Guardian

Is the argument over the Danish cartoons really reducible to a matter of free speech? Even if we believe that free speech is a fundamental value, that does not give us carte blanche to say what we like in any context, regardless of consequence or effect. Respect for others, especially in an increasingly interdependent world, is a value of at least equal importance.

Europe has never had to worry too much about context or effect because for around 200 years it dominated and colonised most of the world. Such was Europe's omnipotence that it never needed to take into account the sensibilities, beliefs and attitudes of those that it colonised, however sacred and sensitive they might have been. On the contrary, European countries imposed their rulers, religion, beliefs, language, racial hierarchy and customs on those to whom they were entirely alien. There is a profound hypocrisy - and deep historical ignorance - when Europeans complain about the problems posed by the ethnic and religious minorities in their midst, for that is exactly what European colonial rule meant for peoples around the world. With one crucial difference, of course: the white minorities ruled the roost, whereas Europe's new ethnic minorities are marginalised, excluded and castigated, as recent events have shown.

But it is no longer possible for Europe to ignore the sensibilities of peoples with very different values, cultures and religions. First, western Europe now has sizeable minorities whose origins are very different from the host population and who are connected with their former homelands in diverse ways. If European societies want to live in some kind of domestic peace and harmony - rather than in a state of Balkanisation and repression - then they must find ways of integrating these minorities on rather more equal terms than, for the most part, they have so far achieved. That must mean, among other things, respect for their values. Second, it is patently clear that, globally speaking, Europe matters far less than it used to - and in the future will count for less and less. We must not only learn to share our homelands with people from very different roots, we must also learn to share the world with diverse peoples in a very different kind of way from what has been the European practice.

Europe has little experience of this, and what experience it has is mainly confined to less than half a century. Old attitudes of superiority and disdain - dressed up in terms of free speech, progress or whatever - are still very powerful. Nor - as many liberals like to think - are they necessarily in decline. On the contrary, racial bigotry is on the rise, even in countries that have previously been regarded as tolerant. The Danish government depends for its rule on a racist, far-right party that gained 13% of the seats in the last election. The decision of Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons - and papers in France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere to reprint them - lay not so much in the tradition of free speech but in European contempt for other cultures and religions: it was a deliberate, calculated insult to the beliefs of others, in this case Muslims.

This kind of mentality - combining Eurocentrism, old colonial attitudes of supremacism, racism, provincialism and sheer ignorance - will serve our continent ill in the future. Europe must learn to live in and with the world, not to dominate it, nor to assume it is superior or more virtuous. Any continent that has inflicted such brutality on the world over a period of 200 years has not too much to be proud of, and much to be modest and humble about - though this is rarely the way our history is presented in Britain, let alone elsewhere. It is worth remembering that while parts of Europe have had free speech (and democracy) for many decades, its colonies were granted neither. But when it comes to our "noble values", our colonial record is always written out of the script.

This attitude of disdain, of assumed superiority, will be increasingly difficult to sustain. We are moving into a world in which the west will no longer be able to call the tune as it once did. China and India will become major global players alongside the US, the EU and Japan. For the first time in modern history the west will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. By the end of this century Europe is likely to pale into insignificance alongside China and India. In such a world, Europe will be forced to observe and respect the sensibilities of others.

Few in Europe understand or recognise these trends. A small example is the bitter resistance displayed on the continent to the proposed takeover of Arcelor by Mittal Steel: at root the opposition is based on thinly disguised racism. But Europe had better get used to such a phenomenon: takeovers by Indian and Chinese firms are going to become as common as American ones. A profound parochialism grips our continent. When Europe called the global tune it did not matter, because what happened in Europe translated itself into a global trend and a global power. No more: now it is simply provincialism.

When Europe dominated, there were no or few feedback loops. Or, to put it another way, there were few, if any, consequences for its behaviour towards the non-western world: relations were simply too unequal. Now - and increasingly in the future - it will be very different. And the subject of these feedback loops, or consequences, will concern not just present but also past behaviour.

For 200 years the dominant powers have also been the colonial powers: the European countries, the US and Japan. They have never been required to pay their dues for what they did to those whom they possessed and treated with contempt. Europeans have treated this chapter in their history by choosing to forget. So has Japan, except that in its case its neighbours have not only refused to forget but are also increasingly powerful. As a consequence, Japan's present and future is constantly stalked by its history. This future could also lie in wait for Europe. We might think the opium wars are "simply history"; the Chinese (rightly) do not. We might think the Bengal famine belongs in the last century, but Indians do not.

Europe is moving into a very different world. How will it react? If something like the attitude of the Danes prevails - a combination of defensiveness, fear, provincialism and arrogance - then one must fear for Europe's ability to learn to live in this new world. There is another way, but the signs are none too hopeful.

Martin Jacques is a senior visiting research fellow at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore

Martinjacques1@aol.com

sab
Dec 4th, 2006, 11:04 PM
I spend time considering these situations and have not arrived at any sort of concrete conclusion. The other day I was looking through my journal that I kept for a little over five years and came across some gibberish I wrote about racism that made think about the changes I've went through in the past six years. Keep in mind this was probably written under the influence of something...

"Racism is truly an ugly beast. The only unracist thing is racism itself. It loves all classes, races, and styles of people out there. It sits on the sofa of the christian, drinking a cup of coffee. It rubs the feet of the athiest while he reads about the celestian prophecy. He is the first one to suggest they stop in to buy a beer after a day on the roofs. This beast takes an exceptional pride in its ability to sleep with the religous and political devout of the world. A truly good buddy in the best and worst of times just like those nice little white buddies that are smoked before the next bus arrives."

The thing I find interesting about this looking back on it (don't remember writing it) is that everything I was writing about was with a white mental picture in my mind. I said all 'races' of people but at the end of the day, even in my mind I was putting a mental picture of a white guy on the couch, a white guy getting off the roof, and so on. It has been so programmed into my mind that I always think in white, images of other people don't really enter my mind. Even if I am trying to be positive and work through issues, at the end of the day I've been so programmed that everything is white and everyone else is just a minority.

I mean really, think about it. Ever since I was born almost all books were about white people - the wizard of oz was white - hobbits seemed white - gandalf was white - louis lamour books were always white - ray bradbury's characters were white - hunter s. thompson, white. The history books were always white, there were the token exceptions but at the end of the day they were just that exceptions. Music had a few different colors but hey, "they are so talented in that area." idea always was the side note behind that. Sports seemed a little bit more multi-colored but everyone was always looking for the 'great white hope'. The picture of Jesus on the wall, white. The pictures of my ancestors that happened to be actually fairly native american looking.... small and at the back of the picture album, after the white people.

Forgive me, I'm starting to ramble. I often do that with no real point in mind but that is just me.

Dialectic
Dec 5th, 2006, 02:04 AM
This is a very good point. For the longest time when I was young, the default "person" in my mind was always white. If you were going to draw a "person" or make up a "person" or name a "person" he would always be white and male. That's what happens in the context of class and power positions.

kalbi
Dec 6th, 2006, 09:14 AM
I guess I'm not the only person that secretly feels sorry for whites... for what's about to come. Realize that Asians, in general, actually have a less-developed sense of racial/political/social tolerance, historically speaking.

LowFrequency
Dec 6th, 2006, 04:17 PM
I guess I'm not the only person that secretly feels sorry for whites... for what's about to come. Realize that Asians, in general, actually have a less-developed sense of racial/political/social tolerance, historically speaking.

What is your basis for saying this?

LaiSteve66
Dec 6th, 2006, 05:17 PM
I don't feel sorry for Whites. Karma's a bitch.

Dialectic
Dec 6th, 2006, 05:43 PM
Realize that Asians, in general, actually have a less-developed sense of racial/political/social tolerance, historically speaking.

I'd say historically speaking we're all about the same, but currently, you're right. Contextual sensitivity, pluralism, multiculturalism have only arose and been systematized in the West: Europe and North America, and even then it's far from perfect.

You can look at it this way: right now the U.S. is being a pretty shitty world superpower; imagine if China were the only one and how fucked up things might be!

blockthebox
Dec 6th, 2006, 05:46 PM
True. I fear you crazy Chinese people.

LowFrequency
Dec 6th, 2006, 06:17 PM
I'd say historically speaking we're all about the same, but currently, you're right. Contextual sensitivity, pluralism, multiculturalism have only arose and been systematized in the West: Europe and North America, and even then it's far from perfect.


Unfortunately, all those things arose in the context of white supremacy/superiority. This tolerance seems to have arisen as a tool for the west to deal with a multicultural society in their midst (a situation they created), and seems, to me at least, to be illusory.


You can look at it this way: right now the U.S. is being a pretty shitty world superpower; imagine if China were the only one and how fucked up things might be!

Yeah, it would be fucked, but in different ways. For instance, we might not have google or youtube. (But, on the bright side, we probably wouldn't have myspace either!)

Dialectic
Dec 6th, 2006, 08:17 PM
Unfortunately, all those things arose in the context of white supremacy/superiority. This tolerance seems to have arisen as a tool for the west to deal with a multicultural society in their midst (a situation they created), and seems, to me at least, to be illusory.

This is, in my view, too cynical and deconstructive of an outlook; there are many people out there, white and otherwise, who genuinely believe in the merits and innate goodness of diversity and multiculturalism. The fact that radical academics and social advocates can even think this way - that multiculturalism is illusory - is an indication that it is not illusory: a significant portion of the population is self-reflective, critical of society, and appreciative of rights, freedoms, and diversity.

Yes, it arose in part because of white colonialism and wealth; at the same time, the development and advancement in scientific, moral, and artistic thinking in the west cannot be underestimated and should be respected and appreciated.