It is tremendously unfortunate that a good portion of the electorate was unable to see yesterday’s CNBC/Wall Street Journal GOP debate - which started at 1pm Pacific. Most hard-working Americans, those who have a good stake in the overall theme of the debate - the economy - were piddling away making widgets or sending company emails while the next potential leader of the country paid them lip service.
The most marked difference about this debate was not the inclusion of newcomer Fred Thompson, but the almost radical change in rhetoric regarding the economy. “The free market” was directly invoked twelve times and alluded to often. Contrast this with the first debate, where the free market was never invoked, and the only time it was alluded to was Mitt Romney’s plan for government mandated national health!
The Reason For the Shift
Really, there are two likely causes. The first is obvious: the entrance of Thompson, who claims to be more fiscally conservative than the other front-runners, has demonstrated that a lot of the Republican base is still very interested in Reagan-style capitalism. While the country overall is clamoring for more government intervention, especially in healthcare and and energy, there is clearly still a segment of republicans who want some remnant of capitalism to remain.
The second reason, however, is because the candidate with the best capitalistic record and strongest advocacy of the free market, Ron Paul, has now demonstrated that economic conservatives will shell out decent money to a consistent and ardent defender of economic liberty.
Where there are votes and money, expect politicians to follow.
Giuliani: “One of our Greatest Assets”
Rudy Giuliani came out first on the capitalism bandwagon:
…the free market is our — one of our greatest assets…the sky’s the limit. The reality is, that what we have to do is look at the fundamentals. A president can’t be a economic forecaster…So the reality is a president has to work on the fundamentals. What are the fundamentals? Keep taxes low. Keep regulations moderate. Keep spending under control.
The statement betrays Giuliani’s economic policy - preserve the status quo. He does not say lower taxes or remove them, he says “keep them” or preserve them where they are. Regulations, which stifle and suffocate businesses, especially new and innovative one, should be moderate? How about minimized? Though the rhetoric is strong on markets, the substance of his statement seems to assume that capitalism includes the kind of taxes and regulations we have now.
Paul the Reformer
Paul had the next go at it, and in one of the most eloquent statements of the entire debate, declared:
I think this is not a consequence of free markets. What’s happening is, there’s transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy. This comes about because of the monetary system that we have. When you inflate a currency or destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out. So the people who get to use the money first which is created by the Federal Reserve system benefit. So the money gravitates to the banks and to Wall Street.
That’s why you have more billionaires than ever before. Today, this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn’t know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn’t know about it.
But it’s because of the monetary system and the excessive spending. As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means.
Paul accurately points out that we do not have a capitalist system, and the fluxuations and boom and bust cycle is not a result of the free market, but a result of the manipulation of the dollar by the Federal Reserve. Paul comes out swinging as a reformer and a truly Reganesque advocate for economic freedom.
Free Markets are Great, but…
Thompson also made a strong statement supporting a market system:
…In a dynamic economy there are jobs lost and there are jobs gained, and so far there have been more jobs gained. And to put up barriers and say that so-and-so cannot lose a job would be the wrong thing to do in a free market economy. It’s been so well for us. It’s made us the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.
This part was impressive. No apologies and no condolences about the consequences of freedom - and this in a very pro-union state! The courage alone was quite remarkable. However, the statement began to sour as Thompson continued:
But there’s some things that you can recognize about the manufacturing industry and how important it is to us and how we can do something for the industry to help them hire more people and keep the wheels rolling.
Government policies, in terms of taxing and spending and regulation — the manufacturing industry is, in large part, an international industry, nowadays, which means prices are set internationally.
Manufacturers cannot do much about that, but they get hit with costs, domestically. We can do a lot about their costs, in terms of taxes and regulation. We have the second highest corporate tax penalty in the world. We need to do better than that. We need to open up foreign markets. A lot of them are closing their markets to our people. Our people are not afraid to compete, if the markets are open and the currency’s not devalued.
In other words, while the government shouldn’t help people keep jobs, they should be bailing out and giving certain special rules to “important” industries. This is central economic planning, not free market capitalism. While lowering the corporate tax rate is a good thing, the government “keeping the wheels rolling” in the industry is subsidy rhetoric.
Nixon in Mormon’s Clothing
The most blatant pro-subsidizer, however, was Romney - who continues to seem more and more like an LDS version of Richard Nixon. When asked about subsidizing farmers, the governor replied:
I believe in domestic supports for our agriculture industry. I don’t see our food supply being the same kind of jeopardy situation that our energy supply is in. And clearly, there’s a responsibility of government to make sure that our farmers are treated on the same basis as farmers in Europe and other markets that we compete with
What happened to the GOP? The front-runners for Regan’s party seem to want the government run the economy and police the world. The past seven years of republican leadership have seen spending skyrocket, welfare expand and regulation increase - all while hypocritically paying lip-service to freedom and capitalism! Why is it that when Paul speaks like Reagan or Goldwater, he is criticized or marginalized - by Regan and Goldwater’s party!
Clearly the GOP is no better than the democratic party when it comes to economic freedom. Yes, the democrats are willing to employ outright socialist rhetoric, while the republicans always start out in defense of capitalism. Yet there is always the inevitable “but” where the republican then explains an area, usually on “national security” qualifications, where government must grow, expand and run the lives of Americans.
I differ with your claim that “The most blatant pro-subsidizer, however, was Romney”. To be sure, Romney is no friend to freedom. But the worst, most blatant, pro-subsidizing claim was Huckabee’s outrageous promise that we need him to get in the White House so that he can marshal the might of the federal government to bring about a transformation in the country’s use of fossil fuels that resembles the activity of a NASCAR pit crew, instead of Goober and Gomer sitting under a tree at the local mechanics shop. Underneath the good ole’ boy parable is a claim that the more the federal government gets involved, the better. In debate after debate Huckabee hasn’t failed to offer a big government solution to every problem mentioned.
Just to be clear, it’s Reagan, not Regan. Sorry to be nitpicky, but spelling mistakes grate on me.
Otherwise, great article! I am disturbed by the trend in American politics toward European politics, where even the conservative party is left of right of left of center and everyone is a latent socialist.
If not for Paul’s rabid isolationist foreign policies, I would really like him for my candidate. Until then, Thompson’s my man.
“Rabid isolationist foreign policies”?
LOL!
Paul is a genius.
And not a isolationist, those who think he is, read this:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would&articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/05/15/ron-paul-can-go-to-hell/
If you want something worth reading, read the above part. Paul has no flippin’ clue about foreign policy stuff, and that is my problem with him. And it’s a huge problem. We don’t live in the 18th century, and even if we did, Paul would be at odds with Jefferson and how we dealt with the Barbary pirates.
But we DON’T live in the 1700’s, and things have changed in 200 years. For one, someone who wants to kill a bunch of Americans can be ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD and still do so. People, catch up with technology!
The above link’s harshness is unfortunate and unrepresentative of my feelings on Paul, but some of the points throughout the post are spot on.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/15/video-rudy-blasts-ron-pauls-apology-for-911/
If you prefer, here’s a better link.
So, to go after those who attacked us is crazy?
To trade with nations is crazy?
To talk to all nations is crazy?
Really?
Are you talking about Bush or Paul?
Thanks for the REAGAN fix Darius. I plan on writing a future article about the pragmatics of Paul’s foreign policy suggestions, especially regarding his plan to go after terrorists.
That would be very educational. If Paul somehow makes it past Super Tuesday, I will want to nail down those positions.
Darius said: For one, someone who wants to kill a bunch of Americans can be ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD and still do so. People, catch up with technology!
The reason they want to kill us in the first place is because we’ve been meddling in their affairs for decades. It’s not as simple as “Radical Islam wants us dead because we are not Muslim,” as the blog you link to assumes. If that were true, there are plenty of infidels in easy reach–they don’t need to expend the effort to attack the US when there are easy pickings elsewhere.
But they are attacking the US, which means there is some motivating factor–something special about the US that makes it an important target. That special something is the US government’s history of meddling in the Middle East. The radical militants would still be militant regardless, but their choice of targets is a result of Western policies. 9/11 would have happened to somebody, but it happened to America specifically because of our foreign policy.
I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul says about foreign policy, but I would be a fool not to acknowledge the link between American foreign policy and the current terrorism threat.
Actually, they are attacking all Western countries, INCLUDING those who don’t much meddle in their affairs (like the German plots, the British bombings, etc).
I don’t mind saying that there have been foreign policy mistakes in the past, but I also don’t like it when people imply that those mistakes make it wrong for us to respond when attacked.
You push someone, he turns and stabs your friend. Do you then say “sorry for pushing you, your response is my fault”? If someone punches you, you don’t stab yourself in reply.
It’s foreign policy, not as simple as the Ron Paul’s of the world love to make it.
If we’re talking about Iraq, it was not a response to 9/11. Bush didn’t justify it that way to the American public, nor was that the reasoning the US presented to the UN. It was about an oppressive, illegitimate regime that was looking to develop WMDs. Let’s not confuse the war in Iraq with combatting terrorism.
It’s funny how an article about the economy sparks a discussion about foreign policy and the war. Sometimes I wish we could elect two presidents: one to handle foreign policy and one to deal with domestic issues.
I somewhat disagree, in that Saddam was actively supporting terrorism, at least in the Middle East.
Don’t worry Jew, we’re not going to allow Colin to get the top 2 most commented articles… not when he spells Reagan wrong. The horror!
I admit, I don’t deserve the top 2 after that!
For those who might like more info:
(1. National Threat) http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#controller_general_david_walker
(2. True cost of gas) http://www.terrarossa.com/?p=225
(3. America: freedom to Fascism) http://www.freedomtofascism.com
(4. The Secret Government…) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82g3KxcFuoY
(5. Truth about Giuliani) http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com/ (6. CIA drug dealing) http://youtube.com/watch?v=1l31x-IIK4E
(7. Civil Liberties Lost) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8&mode=related&search=
(8. Money Masters) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
(9. Iraq War: Legal or Illegal) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8&mode=related&search=
10. www.jews4ronpaul.org
England is still in Iraq today. Germany is home of the largest staging base for our troops on the way to the middle east. Understand our policies first, and then you may understands what motivates our enemies.
“England is still in Iraq today. Germany is home of the largest staging base for our troops on the way to the middle east. Understand our policies first, and then you may understands what motivates our enemies.”
Jon, care to elaborate?
I think he was responding to me and my mention that the terrorists aren’t just attacking the US (which would support the idea that our past involvement in the Middle East is a significant reason for the terrorism) but also, or actually, mostly, Germany, UK, Spain, Canada, etc. Many of those countries have had little or no interference in Middle Eastern politics in the past. Yet still they get terrorized.
It is interesting when people try to rationalize lunatics’ behavior. They kill indiscriminately, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Do you really think they care why they do so? Primarily, they do so because they have no hope in this world, so put all their hope in the next and 70 virgins.
“It is interesting when people try to rationalize lunatics’ behavior. They kill indiscriminately, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Do you really think they care why they do so? Primarily, they do so because they have no hope in this world, so put all their hope in the next and 70 virgins.”
I don’t think radical Islamists kill indiscriminately. You don’t see them targeting their own family members. But if you say they have no hope in this world and they are looking forward to their 70 virgins in the after life, that still constitutes a rationale, albeit a very simple one.
Most human behavior can be rationalized. To say that someone does something because he is a lunatic is usually an oversimplification. I don’t think we should underestimate or rule out demonic influence when people do incredibly evil things, but in most cases there is a psychological cause and effect as well. I’ve known mentally ill people to do incredibly demonic things, some would call supernatural or paranormal, but they also suffered from a chemical imbalance as well.
I try to stay away from black and white analyses, because its usually intentionally deceptive. However, its easy to digest so it appeals to those who would rather have others think for them. For instance, Bush’s analysis of terrorists and “evildoers”, in my mind, was intended to frame national sentiment around the concept of good vs. evil. When it comes to God and the Devil, this application is pertinent. But when it comes to humans…not so much.
Darius, also, Paul was the one who not once but twice issued letters of mark and reprisal to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He also voted to go into Afghanistan to hunt him down.
The problem is that we went from al Queada and Bin Laden as our enemy to the entirety of the muslim world. We see a muslim country that doesn’t fall in line with what we want them to do, and bang, “your a terrorist”, we must end you.
Does Iran support terrorism acts more or less than other nations in the region? Many of which already have nukes, btw.
All the people we are fighting right now, were friends at one time, so now we ally ourselves with others in the region to deal with them, how long before we go full circle again?
These people have been killing each other for centuries… many centuries… We are not going to put a stop to it, and when we get involved we make ourselves targets. So let’s get out of the way already and let them carry on with the business of killing each other, and not us.
We need to focus our money on defense, not offense. Further, we can’t afford the war we have, and now everyone is rushing into another one.
If we allow this to continue, Bin Laden will have won his victory by bankrupting this country which I believe was a primary goal of his. I honestly believe that our reaction was anticipated.
err, not issued… introduced, I meant…
“I think he was responding to me and my mention that the terrorists aren’t just attacking the US (which would support the idea that our past involvement in the Middle East is a significant reason for the terrorism) but also, or actually, mostly, Germany, UK, Spain, Canada, etc. Many of those countries have had little or no interference in Middle Eastern politics in the past. Yet still they get terrorized.”
Again, you need to stop pretending that “they’re all just lunatics” and try to understand their reasoning. Not so you can give them a hug, but so that you can RESPOND to them effectively (whether that is diplomacy, violence, war, or another avenue).
For example, Canada has not been hit by a major terrorist attack (as you indicated). However, it has been warned in writing that if it continues to assist the U.S. in meddling with the middle east, it will be attacked. They’ve put it in writing, Darius! You are doing yourself and your nation a disservice by trying to simplify a conflict to “good v. evil” or “sane v. insane”.
Canada was nearly hit by a terrorist attack that was thwarted at the last minute. “Meddling in the Middle East” is just a cover for radical Islam to spread death and hate. It is a fight of good vs. evil.
“‘Meddling in the Middle East’ is just a cover for radical Islam to spread death and hate. It is a fight of good vs. evil.”
So its like cowboys and Indians? Cops and robbers? Good guys and bad guys? I mean no disrespect, Darius, but I have to say this statement is representative of the lowest degree of intellectual engagement. It demonstrates an unwillingness (not an inability) to reason in order to maintain “loyalty” to country. If you ever wanted to know what the dumbing down of America looks like, here it is. It can be no more evident than in the “us against them” rhetoric that presupposes American superiority at the expense of American accountability.
Let me give you another example: Bill O’Reilly. I don’t hate the man; don’t misunderstand. But he wrote a book called “Culture Warrior” in which he divides Americans into two groups: traditionalists and secular progressives. Traditionalists, according to O’Reilly, believe America - despite its flaws - is a good and noble nation. Secular progressives believe the country is inherently flawed and needs sweeping changes. Do you see the polarization here? You’re either on the left or the right. You are either this or that, good or bad, black or white. There is an implication of required self-classification, asking you the question: where do you fit in the paradigm? Don’t get too far to the Left or you might be labeled a “secular progressive” or worse yet, a Liberal.
If one cannot make a distinction between good and evil, then this world is far gone. This extreme disdain for prejudice (not bigotry, mind you) is scary in its totality. For a great definition of proper prejudice, read Theodore Dalrymple’s book, In Praise of Prejudice.
Bill O’Reilly is mostly a pompous moron who exaggerates everything for the sake of ratings.
In a spiritual sense, all countries and people are evil. But practically speaking, we can’t function if we call everything evil. One MUST differentiate between forces for good and forces for evil (even if they are sometimes both driven by selfish motives). America, by and large, has been the greatest human force for good in the history of the world. And this is still the case; even though we screw up at times, God has obviously used this country to enact positive change throughout the world. This doesn’t necessarily mean that “He’s on our side,” just as it didn’t necessarily mean that when God enabled the Persian king Cyrus to conquer the world and do a lot of good. However, He has and is blessing this country and as long as we attempt to honor Him and it fits His will, those blessings will continue.
On the other hand, most of the Muslim world (particularly the radical portions) has been nothing but a force for evil in the last century. I don’t see why you all are so loath to call Bin Laden and terrorists evil (or maybe more accurately, to call America good). This amazing desire, in the name of multiculturalism and relativism, to equate all people and countries as equally evil (as shown by Colin awhile back when he said Hitler=Bush=Churchill=evil) is going to lead to the destruction of Western society and a return to the dark ages.
“In a spiritual sense, all countries and people are evil. But practically speaking, we can’t function if we call everything evil. One MUST differentiate between forces for good and forces for evil (even if they are sometimes both driven by selfish motives). America, by and large, has been the greatest human force for good in the history of the world.”
I would agree that all governments are influenced by evil, but I don’t think all people are inherently evil - particularly not after we now have the opportunity to be born again by the Spirit of God. God never made an evil creation. But to the extent that anyone yields their members as instruments of unrighteousness (whether born again or not), that person is in effect yielding to evil. And that’s the easiest thing to do because of the weakness of the flesh. So, while it may seem practical to say that our country is a force for good, that would require us to redefine what the word means.
Has the U.S. been the “greatest human force for good in the history of the world”? How can one tell the truth about the matter? Its impossible, because we cannot look at it from all sides; there will always be a bias. And truth can only be told from the perspective of the Omniscient. To determine which government has been the greatest force of good would require knowledge of every government since the dawn of time. None of us would not be equipped to make such a call, even if we are well read. Not everything is written down.
Since I like lists. Here’s a couple that are relevant:
Top-5 good governments:
20th century Switzerland
1801-1837 America
1893-post WWII New Zealand
1974-1997 Hong Kong
1681-1690 Pennsylvania
I would rank the current US government somewhere in the middle of the pack.
However, if you want to talk about private (non-government) aggregate exports of “good”, I would say:
Top-5 exporters of total “good”:
United States
Great Britain
Ancient Sumer
Switzerland
Germany (if not for Hitler era, would beat the crap out of everyone)
Chris, based on his reasoning and statements, Darius is a nationalist and a consequentialist. He refuses to look at the United States objectively. Don’t waste your time.
as opposed to being a moral equivalency artist? I’ll gladly take being a consequentialist.
Let me say this: I am an American. I love America, and cannot imagine living or having lived anywhere else. But I am willing to acknowledge my bias. While I am wholly American, I will not be Amero-centric.
I’m not saying that Americans are better than Middle Easterners… I will say that our culture is better. Not all cultures are created equally. I am interested in who you, Chris and Colin, would reply to that statement.
I’m not a moral moral equivalency artist, I just am willing to call a spade a spade when it comes to WWII history.
“I’m not saying that Americans are better than Middle Easterners… I will say that our culture is better. Not all cultures are created equally. I am interested in who you, Chris and Colin, would reply to that statement.”
The first step would be to define culture. Here are a couple of pertinent definitions from dictionary.com:
5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
6. Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.
The second step would be to define American culture. That would be very difficult to do, given the diversity in our country. The next step would be to define Mid-Eastern culture. I’m not even going to try to tackle that one. I’m not even sure whether there is such a thing.
In any event, an attempt to define all these would result either in definitions too broad or too narrow for real comparison. So I guess my answer is: I choose not to compare one culture with another.
I’m not saying that Americans are better than Middle Easterners… I will say that our culture is better. Not all cultures are created equally. I am interested in who you, Chris and Colin, would reply to that statement.
I missed this Darius, sorry.
I agree 0. Not only can cultures be superiour to others but our culture is far superiour to most middle eastern cultures.
Well, generally-speaking, American culture is based on Judeo-Christian values and the largely-American ideals of individual freedom and the “pursuit of happiness.” Obviously, the culture also now includes Hollywood-style decadence and immorality. But our culture isn’t based on those things; rather they are the unfortunate offspring of individual freedom.
As for Mid-Eastern culture, in a general sense, it is based on Islamic values (control of women; close-minded, unquestioning adherence to religious texts and/or pharisitical leaders; desire that Islam control all facets of society and government). We all know the negative fruits that this type of culture bears, but there are also relatively positive fruit. For one, decadence is at a minimum. Respect of elders and authority is pretty universal. Gender roles are clearly defined. However, here the ends do not justify the means. The culture is based on slavery; slavery to religion, husband, and government. If anyone acts out, they are executed.
Oops, in the “I am interested in who you…” statement, it should read “I am interested in how you…”
“Well, generally-speaking, American culture is based on Judeo-Christian values and the largely-American ideals of individual freedom and the ‘pursuit of happiness.’ Obviously, the culture also now includes Hollywood-style decadence and immorality. But our culture isn’t based on those things; rather they are the unfortunate offspring of individual freedom.”
For years I have heard that American culture is based on Judeo-Christian values. I think its partly true, but a half-truth is more dangerous than a lie. The question is: Are these Judeo-Christian values a matter of theory or practice or both? And if both, to what extent is it one or the other? And which values are we talking about?
And whether the basis of our culture is the aforementioned one seems less important than the fruit it has produced since its inception - hence the theory or practice question. So we have to own the Hollywood decadence, and we have to own every dark thing in our nation’s history that has shaped it from its very beginnings - genocide of indigenous peoples, slavery, the Civil War, segregation, etc.
None of those were unique to America. Those are inherent in all mankind; thus the whole “everyone is naturally evil” bit. As for the genocide of the Indians, it was mostly a kill-or-be-killed situation. Yes, the whites did some despicable things. But so did the Indians, we were equally evil (and good). It was a clash of cultures (not civilizations, since the Indians were not civilized even in a basic sense), and the better one won out even though some of man’s evil tendencies did as well.
Likewise, slavery, the Civil War (not sure how that was a “dark thing” other than in the sense that it cost many lives), and segregation (again, not sure if I would define this as bad, since forced desegregation caused as many problems as it solved) were not unique to this country. In fact, I would put forth the belief that currently, this country is the least racist country in the world. We have racists, but nothing like the rest of the world.
What was unique was how we combined Judeo-Christian values with a government system that would allow them to thrive.
“It was a clash of cultures (not civilizations, since the Indians were not civilized even in a basic sense), and the better one won out even though some of man’s evil tendencies did as well.”
You’re wrong about this on a number of levels. In fact, I have to assume that either the basis of your argument is the stereotyping of Native Americans or you just made it up. Have you ever heard of the Iroquois Confederacy? Plus there were hundreds of various tribes and bands of indigenous people that you have labeled “uncivilized.” Are you knowledgeable about any of their systems of government? Obviously not.
“…and segregation (again, not sure if I would define this as bad, since forced desegregation caused as many problems as it solved) were not unique to this country.”
So segregation wasn’t bad, huh? I suppose treating whole segments of the population as second-class citizens and refusing them the right to vote or equal opportunities in society doesn’t reflect negatively on culture either. And did desegregation cause problems or did it shed light on a problem that already existed, namely racism?
“In fact, I would put forth the belief that currently, this country is the least racist country in the world. We have racists, but nothing like the rest of the world.”
I would like to know the basis for this statement. We don’t have racists as bad as “the rest of the world”?
Both of you are making a fundamental error of associating yourselves with Americans in the 1800’s. I didn’t know both of you have been alive for hundreds of years and are responsible for various atrocities like Indian killings and african slavery.
“Both of you are making a fundamental error of associating yourselves with Americans in the 1800’s. I didn’t know both of you have been alive for hundreds of years and are responsible for various atrocities like Indian killings and african slavery.”
Darius started out by making is argument for the superiority of American culture on the basis of its supposed Judeo-Christian foundation. I was merely pointing out that historical events shape culture. When it comes to American culture, these are some of the events that have shaped ours. There’s no way to disassociate slavery from the Civil War (regardless whether you believe it was the primary reason for the war) or segregation. All these things have played a part in the social attitudes of America, and thus have influenced culture.
There probably aren’t very many Americans who are not familiar with Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben. These are caricatures of slaves deeply ingrained in American culture. Or what about the unwillingness of white Southerners to part with the Confederate flag as an emblem on their state flags? I would argue that such a display is not only offensive, but treasonous - definitely a blight on American culture.
This is not an argument for reparations or anything else. I’m simply stating that history shapes culture, and to presuppose cultural superiority requires that we examine our history from the perspectives of outsiders. If Americans did this, I doubt they would still come to the conclusion that U.S. culture is superior. To me, such an assertion demonstrates arrogance and American exceptionalism.
I look younger than I am.
Chris, I should have defined “civilized.” To my knowledge, none of the tribes in what is now the United States had a written language. This is the most basic requirement to be considered a civilization. Meanwhile, the Aztecs and Mayans had a written language and had significantly more advanced societies.
A system of government doesn’t mean a tribe is civilized. Monkeys have a hierarchy of leadership, but we don’t call them a “civilization.” For whatever reason, the Indians in this country had not advanced and were hundreds of years behind their counterparts to the south, and thousands of years behind their conquerors from the east. No idea why; I haven’t ever heard if there have been any tests to indicate if there was some inherent genetic weakness in their cerebral capabilities.
“So segregation wasn’t bad, huh? I suppose treating whole segments of the population as second-class citizens and refusing them the right to vote or equal opportunities in society doesn’t reflect negatively on culture either. And did desegregation cause problems or did it shed light on a problem that already existed, namely racism?”
Refusing blacks the right to vote is a separate issue from segregation. Many segregated schools were done so by choice (both white AND black). Forcing them to desegregate was as wrong as forcing schools TO segregate. The government should have made sure that no schools were purposefully separating students based on race, but at the same time, it made no sense to ship students across town for the sole purpose of having equal amounts of color in each school.
The reason I mentioned my belief that America is possibly the least racist country in the world is that the evidence bears that out. While most of the world has continued to struggle with genocidal tendencies (Serbia, Rwanda, Cambodia, to name a few), the USA has had mostly minor and isolated issues, usually kept to a relatively small group (such as the KKK). In Europe today, racial and ethnic tensions are quite high between the white majority (though steadily decreasing) and the ever-increasing Muslim minority (though already a majority among the youth). You just don’t have that in this country. You have local hot spots, but overall, most of the perceived racism is fomented by racebaiters like the Revs Sharpton and Jackson.
“There probably aren’t very many Americans who are not familiar with Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben. These are caricatures of slaves deeply ingrained in American culture. Or what about the unwillingness of white Southerners to part with the Confederate flag as an emblem on their state flags? I would argue that such a display is not only offensive, but treasonous - definitely a blight on American culture.”
Not to mention the black hip hop culture which has an extreme distrust of whites and authority.
“For whatever reason, the Indians in this country had not advanced and were hundreds of years behind their counterparts to the south, and thousands of years behind their conquerors from the east. No idea why; I haven’t ever heard if there have been any tests to indicate if there was some inherent genetic weakness in their cerebral capabilities.”
The fact that you would even suggest the possibility that a test might prove some “inherent genetic weakness” in the cerebral capacities of Native Americans strikes me as being Social Darwinist at best, and racist at worst.
For whatever reason, the Indians in this country had not advanced and were hundreds of years behind their counterparts to the south, and thousands of years behind their conquerors from the east. No idea why; I haven’t ever heard if there have been any tests to indicate if there was some inherent genetic weakness in their cerebral capabilities.
Two reasons, and they are well outlined in the book Guns, Germs and Steel:
- Inadequate large domestic animals for farming and labor
- Geographic barriers including a vertical continent
It has nothing to do with cultural inferiority and everything to do with the hand they were dealt in geography.
Also, what I meant earlier is that you both are taking ownership of slavery and Indian atrocities in your language - specifically using “we.”
Chris, I knew someone would probably call me racist for suggesting the possibility that there are differences in people. The horror! I guess chalk that up to the politically correct climate we live in, always someone who’s been taken in by it. Just like the president of Harvard getting canned for wondering aloud if innate differences between the genders explained why more men were in the sciences.
Besides the fact that it feels icky to bring up such a discussion, why are you so averse to the possibility that there are mental differences between groups of humans? After all, it is quite undeniable that some people are born more naturally gifted physically than others, even from one people group to another (i.e. some races’ superiority at certain sports). So why wouldn’t we think that just as physical ability is obviously genetic, mental aptitude likely has some relationship with genes? That doesn’t make some person or group less human, just less gifted in that particular area and perhaps less civilized in certain cases? Some North American Indians civilizations did not develop while others within a few hundred miles did.
It’s funny that Colin mentioned a book by a evolutionary biologist, the author (Diamond) makes the claim that environment shapes the person. I would be willing to bet that Diamond also believes that poverty is the cause of crime. From what I know of the book, it is fraught with political correctness and a complete distortion of human history.
It’s funny that Colin mentioned a book by a evolutionary biologist, the author (Diamond) makes the claim that environment shapes the person. I would be willing to bet that Diamond also believes that poverty is the cause of crime. From what I know of the book, it is fraught with political correctness and a complete distortion of human history.
I’m not saying that I agree with everything Diamond ever has said or put in the book (which is, ironically, a bit morally equivalent of you) but that his book has a good explanation of why American Indians were way underdeveloped compared to Europeans.
“Chris, I knew someone would probably call me racist for suggesting the possibility that there are differences in people. The horror! I guess chalk that up to the politically correct climate we live in, always someone who’s been taken in by it.”
When you compared Native civilizations with monkeys, I let it go. But when you suggest (as did the Nazis) that it is possible for some races to have less cognitive development, I had to say something.
Here are some definitions for “racism” from dictionary.com:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
The comment you made was, by definition, racist. Political correctness has nothing to do with it. Its not racist in the hateful sense (see 3), but in the sense that you suggest there may be a deficiency in the capacity for “cultural or individual achievement” in Native Americans (see 1).
So it is racist to believe that black men are better at basketball and some other sports than white men? If so, fine, I’m racist. I really don’t care if that’s the definition. Though, I didn’t say anything about my race’s right to rule the Indians. I’m just trying to offer a possible explanation of why the North American Indians did not develop when their neighbors to the south did. I understand a tribe on some lonely Pacific island not developing in 1000 years, but the North American Indians were not cut off from civilizations.
As for the monkeys reference, I figured that would boil someone’s politically correct blood. And yes, it is political correctness when one is not allowed to discuss civilizational development (or lack thereof) without being called a racist or a Nazi. Did you attend a secular liberal arts university? If so, that would explain a lot, as you’ve been trained well in the PC culture.
“So it is racist to believe that black men are better at basketball and some other sports than white men? If so, fine, I’m racist. I really don’t care if that’s the definition.”
Well, you’re definitely helping me prove my point about racism in America. And I think you may have undermined your own assessment of America being the least racist country in the world.
“As for the monkeys reference, I figured that would boil someone’s politically correct blood. And yes, it is political correctness when one is not allowed to discuss civilizational development (or lack thereof) without being called a racist or a Nazi. Did you attend a secular liberal arts university? If so, that would explain a lot, as you’ve been trained well in the PC culture.”
You are certainly “allowed” to discuss the development of civilizations; that’s not the issue. The issue is that you asserted that one civilization may be less developed because of genetic inferiority. And no, I never attended a “secular liberal arts university.” I attended Bible school, and not a “liberal” one either.
Well, by your extremely loose definition of racism, which is in fact merely stereotypes or acknowledgement of obvious differences, then almost everyone is racist. And if you would have read more closely, I did NOT assert that there is a genetic inferiority, just that there might be. Read back through my comments and tell me where I asserted that as a fact. You’re extremely politically correct, and what’s worse, you don’t even see it. You misquote, wrongly infer, and call people Nazis and racists, all because something doesn’t FEEL right to you. What is more PC than that?
I was afraid you were going to say you went to a Bible school. It’s very unfortunate that our Bible schools are no better than the secular ones at correcting the politically correct garbage that the culture has put into us.
You are misquoting me; I didn’t misquote you. Here is what I said:
“The issue is that you asserted that one civilization MAY BE less developed because of genetic inferiority.”
“May be” and “might be” is the same thing, right? And I’m not going to take ownership of a dictionary definition of the word, “racism”. Its not my “loose definition”, its the dictionary definition.
And I didn’t say you were a Nazi, but I was comparing your racial ideology with theirs - which is very similar. I would say the main difference is that you seem to think that the Black “race” (a term I do not use in reference to ethnic groups) is more athletic in certain sports than Whites. Whereas the Nazis believed the Aryan “race” was superior in strength and intelligence.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn’t mean that I ascribe to the belief that blacks are more athletic (though I do think the evidence might bear that out), but that if someone believing that is racist by your definition, then pretty much everyone is racist.
Sorry to misquote you.
You didn’t say I’m a Nazi, just implied it. Thus, since Nazis believed some similar things, by association I’m as bad as a Nazi on this issue. That’s called an association fallacy. Kind of like saying:
Osama bin Laden is opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. Therefore anyone opposed to the invasion of Iraq must be a terrorist.
It is your loose definition, since you take the dictionary’s definition and modify it to fit your own politically correct views.
Let’s review: 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
By this definition, it’s more than just believing that people have different IQs, different physical abilities, and other differing capabilities. It’s taking that belief and using it to support the idea that one race is SUPERIOR to another. I never made that assertion, and never would. I only assert that not all cultures are equal (which is an entirely different topic). By YOUR definition, racism is simply denying the facts (IQs, physical differences, etc.) Seriously, stop and think for a second. People have different IQs, and studies have shown that certain races consistently test higher or lower than other races. Same with physical traits. Some tribes in Africa are extremely tall, why is it so hard to believe that just as some people groups are taller than others, some are also faster than others, more adept at athletics than others, etc? This doesn’t mean that one group of people are less human or less “equal.” It only means that to someone who has to assign worth to every human ability.
Chris, you are being the equivalent of the child in the classroom who covers his ears, closes his eyes, and says “La la la, I can’t hear you. 2 2 doesn’t equal 4.”
Darius, you modified the definition in the following quote:
“It’s taking that belief and using it to support the idea that one race is SUPERIOR to another. I never made that assertion, and never would.”
The definition says:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, USUALLY involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
According to this definition, if you espouse to a belief that certain “races” are in some way less equipped toward “cultural or individual achievement”, even if that belief is not used to support the ideal of racial superiority, its still racism. Notice the word “usually” in the definition. Although you did not state as fact the belief that Native Americans have cognitive inferiority, you implied that it was possible. Therefore, such an implication demonstrates racist ideology because you gave that as a possible reason for indigenous societies not being “civilized.”
“People have different IQs, and studies have shown that certain races consistently test higher or lower than other races.”
I would like to know which studies you’re talking about here. Even if studies indicated higher or lower test scores in certain ethnic groups, there would likely be all sorts of variables involved - socio-economic status, level of education, test material, possible test bias, etc. Any study claiming to conclusively measure intelligence on the basis of ethnic make-up would be highly suspect.
I will have to find those studies, I heard them mentioned a few months ago. But that was my first question as well, what about other variables? But supposedly, all pertinent variables were taken into consideration. For example, Blacks routinely test lower than Caucasians, and Caucasians lower than Asians.
But even if such tests are inconclusive, we still have the undeniable fact that some races are better equipped physically than others. So it would make sense if that stayed true in the cognitive arena as well.
As for the capabilities of North American Indians… I would be interested in an explanation of why their “civilization” was so retarded (or limited, if you will) when the Aztecs and Mayans to the south were thriving and advancing. Geography seems a poor reason, since they had contact with each other (at least to some extent).
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/11194/sec_id/11194
Worthwhile read, interesting.
“As for the capabilities of North American Indians… I would be interested in an explanation of why their “civilization” was so retarded (or limited, if you will) when the Aztecs and Mayans to the south were thriving and advancing.”
I have done considerable reading about Native American culture, and grew up in Oklahoma where there is the most diverse tribal population of any other state. I have some Native ancestry, but did was not brought up with many of the values I have witnessed in the various Native communities.
The best book I have read for understanding the collective cultural mindset of Native Americans is “The American Indian Mind in a linear World,” written by Donald Fixico. Fixico is also from Oklahoma, and is an expert in American Indian history. If you are interested in reading it, it can be found for free on Google books.
But to give you an abbreviated answer about why these cultures did not develop similarly to their European counterparts it is this: linear thinking versus circular thinking. Its got nothing to do with genetics. The linear mind emphasized a time line progression, while the circular mind emphasizes cycles and that which remains constant - it does not ascribe the same value to the passage of time, and is not chronological in the same way the Western mind is.
This may not make much sense to most Westerners. Its a different (not inferior) way of thinking, closer to some Eastern ways of perception. Its based on a different value system. Each way - the linear and the circular - has its advantages and disadvantages.
I wasn’t saying that their method of thinking was inferior, just that the culture and civilization it bred was inferior in terms of technology and many other methods of defining a civilization. Again, the PEOPLE were not inferior, but the culture was. And whether or not this style of thinking was partly genetic or if it was completely imbued via environment and tradition, that is unanswered.
So were the Aztecs linear thinkers? And were the Chinese linear thinkers? You mention that the circular thinking is “closer to some Eastern ways of perception.” If this is the case, why does one find some of the most advanced ancient civilizations in Asia?
This issue is really too complex to address in this setting. And honestly I don’t have all the answers anyway. But I would say that the value system is relative to the desire for technological advancement. We could use the Amish as a modern-day example. Can we really say their culture is inferior because they don’t utilize technology? Its not that they do not have the capacity to advance technologically, its that they choose not to. They value the simple life.
To the traditional Native American, it is and was much the same. Easier is not necessarily better. (I’m thinking of some of Thainamu’s threads right now.) Its about what you value. Much of the technology that was introduced by the Europeans was discarded because it wasn’t valued, not necessarily because it wasn’t useful.
I heard a story from a Navajo missionary. Some white missionaries approached her and told her how they had been to the reservation and how they had pitied her people for having to live in those dirt huts, etc. (Yes, some Navajos still live this way.) The Navajo missionary replied, “Don’t feel sorry for us. We love those huts, and we don’t have to pay a mortgage or property taxes on them like you do.”
That kind of gets into the whole “money doesn’t equal happiness/poverty doesn’t equal misery” discussion.
It does, but some cultures definitely have a predisposition towards simpler living. I don’t live without electricity, but just because some people choose to doesn’t mean their cultures are deficient in some way. In fact, there are qualities I admire in living the way the Amish do. Their ability to live off the land, make their own furniture and clothes, maintain their Germanic dialect, etc. are all enviable cultural traits to me.
Yes, but as that Dalrymple piece I linked to above stated, better to allow the newer generations to freely decide their path than to force them down the one taken by the past generations. My wife knew a bunch of Amish kids when she was in high school, and they were the most rebellious kids she had ever known. There is a huge difference between “training up a child in the way he should go” and forcing them to follow that way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7062382.stm
interesting news bit