CULTURISM
A Word, A Value, Our Future
By John Kenneth Press
©2007
To my grandfather, Joseph Eugene Press, for service during World War
Two and Lillian Press, his wife, for maintaining the home front.
Chapter One: Culturism
Introduced . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
Chapter Two: Culturism in
Chapter Three: Culturism in
World History . . . . . Page 45
Chapter Four: Culturism in
Anthropology . . . . . . Page 72
Chapter Five: Western Culture
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 95
Chapter Six: Culturism in
Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page
117
Chapter Seven: Culturism in
Psychology . . . . . . .Page 138
Chapter Eight: Culturism in
Philosophy . . . . . . . Page 165
Chapter Nine: Culturism and
Multiculturalism . . Page 195
Chapter Ten: Culturist Policy
Implications . . . . . .Page 215
CHAPTER ONE - CULTURISM INTRODUCED
Culturism (cŭl-ch́әr-ĭź-әm) n. 1. The philosophy, art and science that values, manages and protects majority cultures. 2. A philosophy which holds that defining, protecting and promoting majority cultures should be legitimate policy considerations. 3. The study of culturism.
Culturist (cŭl-ch́әr-ĭst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the art or science of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy. - adj.
Culturism generally
Culturism takes diversity seriously. Culturists recognize that some people would rather do drugs at home than go to school sober. This preference can have ramifications for our economy. It has often been noted that a strong middle class helps stabilize democracies. This means that if we do not maintain a strong economy, our democracy itself could be endangered. We must maintain our culture to maintain our nation. Islamic cultures do not celebrate free speech. Violence against very few reporters could undermine this lynchpin of Western democracies. The multiculturalist creed that suggests that we never judge cultures could be dangerous. Culturism appreciates diversity internationally. Theocracy in other countries should not concern us. Asian nations have a right to define themselves racially. But the more we realize how divergent cultures are the more we appreciate that the Western also has a particular culture it must protect.
Culturism does not mistake the Western love of democracy and rights for universally agreed upon truths. Other forms of social organization and even chaos exist. Mistaking our values for universal truths causes us to take them for granted. We think that they are so natural that they will exist whether or not we assert them. We are led to believe that our government can be indifferent and impartial in regards to our cultural health and we will survive. Our mistaken belief that our values are the universal default also results in our trying to export them to the rest of the world. We fail to realize that others have different visions for their societies and that democracies rest upon specific cultural attitudes. Recognizing that our culture is just one among many will help us avoid apathy and arrogance.
We must protect our culture. Ours is an optimistic culture. It rests on a faith in the few Western cultures’ ability to govern themselves without heavy handed cultural controls. Others have been following our lead. Yet, no supernatural or metaphysical guarantees of our sustainability exist. Just as debtors and alcoholics have their freedoms undermined by their inability to control themselves, our excesses can undermine our collective freedoms. Without our example worldwide diversity would increase for the worse. In our country, legal rights are used to protect anti-social behavior and the doctrine of individualism tells us no one can judge them. Multiculturalism undermines the belief that we even have a specific culture and the threat of being called racist bullies those who would discuss it. The word culturism needs to be adopted to foster badly needed values, policies, and discussions.
Definition by analogy
Using schools as an analogy for society will help the benefits and need for culturism clearer. If students are told that the reason they are doing homework has only to do with themselves as individuals, not doing it becomes a purely personal decision. When using individualism as the measure of all behavior, taking drugs, profanity, and scholastic failure can only judged by the effects on the individual. If the individual wants to mess up his or her life it is no one else’s business. Individualism can only provide us with a weak basis for teaching morals. Multiculturalism’s celebration of diversity provides no particular values. Culturism provides coherent yet flexible values and a reason to lead a positive life. That reason being: the maintaining of individualism, rights, democracy, and the culture we hold dear. Student’s and citizens do this by acting responsibly.
Excessive individualism can impair our personal and social mental health. Young people naturally want to join groups.[iii] Being a part of a team inspires joy and great effort. Being told that you and your work have no connection to the fate of others is not ennobling or inspiring. Isolation is depressing. If we do not give young people a sense of connection, they often find it in the form of gangs and other anti-social cliques. Culturism gives you a team to root for. Culturism provides a sense of motivation and belonging so that anti-social groups do not have to do it for us. Culturism provides collective mental health and a sense of community with those around you. As sure as loneliness hurts, culturism is more conducive to mental health than individualism.
A hypothetical culturist policy could require students who refuse to do homework being made to pay for classes they ignored if they wish to re-enroll. Unfortunately, student’s rights often incapacitate efforts to protect, promote, and even sustain schools as institution. Schools where students’ rights protect them from having to learn often cease to be schools in all but name. The same goes for societies in which citizens do not have to consider the public ramification of their actions. A nation of anti-social hooligan citizens cannot sustain its freedom. Our schools being zones of belligerence and ignorance threatens our economic leadership and solvency. Culturist considerations need to counterbalance rights if we are to effectively guide ourselves.
Such scenarios are not only hypothetical. Those with disabilities have rights to sue schools for not providing adequate educations if their individual needs are not met. More and more differences are being classified as disabilities and spawning lawsuits. Yet, schools may not be able to financially or physically meet every child’s individual needs. In such a situation the individual has been given all the rights and the school, none. The school loses the ability to choose which programs it wants to emphasize and could conceivably be bankrupted by such lawsuits. Culturism recognizes that all Americans have rights, but social and cultural contexts must be considered legitimate concerns in policy decisions.
Though not as easy to measure as lawsuits, we must recognize the importance of cultural dynamics. Individuals’ actions are, in fact, never entirely divorced from the cultural milieu in which they are performed. If only one teacher battles pervasive graffiti in a school, his remarks on the subject may be seen as the obsession of an individual crank. If a school has managed to create a culture in which vandalism does not occur, the individual who vandalizes the school will seem to be the bizarre one. Individual actions are nearly always evaluated against the background of cultural norms. Culturism recognizes that individual morals cannot be divorced from the cultural milieu in which they are enacted and that the cultural milieu must be considered important.
This book will remind us of many common sense culturist dynamics we know about but have been ignoring. For example very existence of public schools is predicated on the culturist truth that we have a common destiny. Reviewing
Culturism is meant to be a corrective against excessive individualism and rights. It is, however, not against individual liberty and rights. A lack of collective sentiment has been shown to undermine our willingness to fully fund public schools.[iv] This lack of collective sentiment thus undermines our ability to fulfill our individual potentials. Contrary to what individualists tell you, thriving economies are the result of collective community efforts.[v] If the overall economy declines individuals have fewer opportunities and talk of rights and individualism will start to ring hallow. Reminding people of the collective nature of our success reinforces both our individual and collective potentials. A sense of collective responsibility and destiny does not interfere with personal achievement; it bolsters it. Great schools foster successful students.
Parameters of Western culturism
Western culturism is more complicated than other types of culturism. Gambling, gang membership, white collar crime, pollution, children being raised in poverty due to bad parenting decisions, profanity, drugs, and prostitution negatively affect our culture. Other cultures can outlaw and violently punish all antisocial behavior without violating their basic tenets. Western culturism must be much more nuanced. We cannot throw out our tradition of liberty and rights to protect our tradition of liberty and rights. Sustaining liberty and rights in Western nations requires a nuanced understanding of our history, culture, and traditions.
Because Western civilization is progressive, Western culturism should seek to help
Yet ultimately, every value system holds that some behaviors are preferable to others. This cannot be avoided. Advocating peace implies a disdain for war. Saying that people should be thin necessarily implies that they should not be fat. Like all value systems, culturism disparages that which is disrespectful of our traditions and that which undermines our ability to perpetuate them. Western culturists need not concern themselves with the morality of female genital mutilation in other countries. Recognizing and appreciating diversity means accepting that people in other parts of the world are entitled to promote and enjoy their own cultural value systems. But Western culturism must strongly and clearly denounce female genital mutilation and other values foreign to our traditions in Western lands. Culturism cannot help but define some practices as being outside the scope of our traditional values.
Since a broad range of cultures exists, there are a variety of culturisms and types of culturist practices. Our mode of culturism will, naturally, be based on our culture’s history and shared values. Asian culturists value and seek to perpetuate Asian cultures. Muslim culturists should value and seek to perpetuate Islamic culture. While it would be inappropriate for us to force a dress code on our populace, it is not hypocritical for Muslim societies to do so. Each type of culturism uses techniques appropriate to the value system it represents. Korean culturists might be concerned with reminding people about the inventor of their alphabet, King Sejong.
People might reasonably raise the question of whether or not cultures can be discussed as discrete entities. After all, cultures are multifaceted and not everyone in a culture adopts all of the values. First of all, in some heavy handed cultures, the populations are much more monolithic. Secondly, as with criminals, just because a culture has nice elements does not mean we cannot discuss the elements that need change. Lastly, all policy decisions refer to groups. Advertising welfare – to – work programs makes more sense in some neighborhoods than others. Saying that it does not apply to everyone in the neighborhood is true. As our traditions would demand, we should try to think of individuals as individuals. However, such nuances cannot stop us from making generalizations; cultures are real.
The Germans’ actions in World War Two have made Western countries skittish about national pride. Nationalism is not a well-grounded philosophy and we should be leery of it. Western culturism’s parameters are set by traditional values which are older than our nation. Western culture has been against tyranny since the ancient Greeks first defeated the Persians. It has traditionally respected the advice of individuals in governance. Our sensitivity to the prerogatives of the individual is a longstanding and justifiable source of pride. No objective criteria exist by which to say that Western culture is any better or worse than any other culture. All people get formed by their cultures. As such, we Westerners cannot help but cherish self-governance, individualism, and democracy. Nationalism’s worship of the nation because it is the nation can be dangerous. Western culturism’s grounding in history and traditional values protects us from the sorts of illiberal tyrannies that Western nations fear collective pride can lead to.
People who love their cultures have reasons to be happy and proud. This is a very natural and healthy state of mind. Of course, excessive self-regard can be pathological; it can make a culture overly complacent. Our ability to endlessly repeat “We are number one” as we sink in educational attainment shows that self-regard must be grounded in reality to not be delusional. Equally dangerous is the fact that overly inflated self-esteem can led you to denigrate other cultures and ignore their sovereignty. Culturism advocates respecting all cultures within their own spheres of influence. As such it has a bias towards isolationism. Our culture is special because it is not the common default of societies. Excessive self-love can undermine your ability to be realistic; it can lead to complacency and arrogance.
While excessive self-love can be destructive, not having any self-regard is both sad and pathological. We tremendous accomplishments to proud of and that should serve as the inspiration for our protection of Western cultural heritage. Western culturism does not mean that you do not critically evaluate your society; success requires doing so. Culturism should create self-critical dialogue in our society, not stop it. However, our self-scrutiny must be done with the goal of perpetuating, not denigrating, our culture. Cultures cannot be sustained by chauvinism or self-loathing. Western culturism must be based on a realistic understanding of our history, traditions, weaknesses, and strengths.
Definition by contrasts
Currently, in English, valuing and prioritizing one’s culture is associated with the words “xenophobia,” “ethnocentrism,” “jingoism,” “patriotism.” “nationalism,” and “nativism.” Each of these words is problematic for reasons that will be explored below. None of them can be used as the basis of a practical and grounded value system with which to guide society. Overall, the use of these terms actually stops us from having rational discourse concerning vital social issues that we need to have.
Xenophobia (zěn΄ә-fō¢b-ēә) n. An undue fear or contemptuousness of that which is foreign, esp. of strangers or foreign peoples.[4]
Xenophobia’s being “undue” makes it irrational. Culturism is a rational value system. In seeking rational discourse, then, culturism will be a better fount of dialogue than xenophobia. “Phobia” is word used in psychology to denote irrational fear. One cannot base positive policy considerations on irrational phobias. Xenophobia is useless as an organizational tool. Culturism is not based on irrational fears. It is a positive valuing of self and highly conducive to valuing the other cultures. Xenophobia cannot be the basis of rational policy analysis.
Culturism and xenophobia’s real difference, however, are not in their dictionary definitions. The main difference between the two terms lies in their connotations. Xenophobia is a slur. In common parlance saying that someone is xenophobic is tantamount to calling them a racist or small-minded. If they do not immediately deny that they are xenophobic, nothing they say will be considered worth listening to. The same racist and irrational connotations resonate from the concepts of ethnocentrism, jingoism, and nativism. These terms cannot instigate rational conversations. Whereas they are, at best, obstacles to discussion, the word culturism can provide a basis for useful cultural guidelines, values, and discussions.
Eth·no·cen·trism (ĕth¢nō-sen'trĭz'әm) n. 1. Belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic group. 2. Overriding concern with race.[5]
The problem with the term “ethnocentrism” comes from the fact that it not only connotes racism, it denotes it. The root, “ethno,” is very closely linked to ethnicity, and ethnicity is very often linked to race. Culturism cannot amount to anything if it gets confounded with the false, dangerous, and unfruitful concept of racism. Culturists must always be careful to explain their sincere disgust with racism. That being the case, an entire section of this introduction will be dedicated to denouncing racism. Ethnocentrism is a slur that shuts down conversation and undermines positive values and rational policy formulation. This word necessitates an alternate term such as culturism.
Jin·go·ism (jĭng¢o-ĭz'әm) n. Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.[6]
Here again we have a word loaded with negative connotations. “Extreme” and “chauvinist” are not attributes of a reasonable ideology. And while culturism does advocate protecting one’s own culture, it does not entail belligerence towards others. Chinese culturism dictates that the Chinese take pride in their culture. Iranian culturism advocates that Iranian culture be a source of joy for the Iranians. Culturism does not imply that you seek to destroy or dominate other cultures. Quite the opposite: culturism is appreciative of the Western allowance for both domestic and international diversity. Being appreciative of international diversity, culturism is compatible with isolationism in a way that the chauvinistic concept of jingoism is not.
Nationalism (năsh¢ә-nә-lĭz¢әm) n. Devotion to the interests or culture of one’s nation. 2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.[7]
The concept of nationalism has the same problems as patriotism; it also suffers from a lack of content. Though the dictionary definition refers to culture, nationalism is normally thought of as just being in favor of one’s nation. Thus in common usage it is akin to “geography-ism.” Being for your nation because it is your nation is not a very deep philosophy. Nationalism provides no philosophical guidance.
More importantly, the boundaries of the concept are too small. Culture transcends nations. Western civilization is larger than any one Western nation. Thus culturism gives the Western world an equivalent to the Muslim concept of “ummah” (meaning the greater transnational Muslim community). Nationalism, as the dictionary definitions indicates, sees each nation as an isolated player. In fact nations often have shared affinities and histories. Culturism can address geo-political concerns and realities in ways that nationalism cannot.
Patriotism (pā¢trē-ә-tĭz¢-әm) n. Love of and devotion to one’s country.[8]
“Patriotism” is an empty word because it does not convey why you value the country you value. It includes no more content than saying you are for your country just because it is yours. It is love of country regardless of that country’s merits. Claiming patriotism in an argument is often a trick used to claim the upper ground and slander all those who would argue with you. Like racism, it gets invoked to protect oneself from substantive discussion. Patriotism has rightfully been called the last refuge of scoundrels. Patriotism is, in fact, a fine sentiment, but it cannot foster policy as affectively as culturism.
Culturism implies historical continuity. Western history provides a traditional context within which actions can be judged as worthy or unworthy. Historical and cultural precedent means that McCarthyite tactics cannot be justified in the name of culturism in the way that they can under the banner of patriotism. In fact, McCarthy was denounced for violating our cultural tradition of free speech, not for a lack of patriotism. He was denounced on culturist grounds, not patriotic grounds. And where patriotism does mention history, it is limited to national history. Culturism, again, ties us to all of Western civilization.
Nativism (nā¢tĭ-vĭz¢әm) n. 1. A sociopolitical policy, esp. in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of native inhabitants over those of immigrants. . . . 3. The re-establishment or perpetuation of native cultural traits, esp. in opposition to acculturation.[9]
Nativism refers to a 19th century political movement that hated foreigners. Adopting this term for purposes of discussion implies inapplicable historical baggage. More fundamentally, those who would compare culturism to Nativism completely misunderstand our term. Nativism sought to separate the Native Americans from the foreigners. It was based on the simplistic and false evaluation of the local as good and the immigrant as evil, with no room for nuance or reconciliation. In a diverse society like ours such demonizing can only lead to disaster. Culturism’s goal is unity. Certainly culturism recognizes Western civilization as the basis for our society. But Western culturist values are inclusive and provide standards to which we can all aspire and by which we can all be judged.
Racism
Race (rās) n. 1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.[10]
Racism (rā¢sĭz¢әm) n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on racism.[11]
The West’s ability to meaningfully discuss its cultural virtues and vices has been greatly hindered by our inability to distinguish culture and race. We, rightfully, want to avoid discrimination based on race. But fear of being accused of this has compromised our ability to discuss values in general. We need to be able to advocate some behaviors and disparage others. Culturism is a rational basis for discrimination.[12] Racism is not. Conversations based on cultural precepts can be very healthy. Conversations based on race are counterproductive and dangerous.
Racism, in essence, is discrimination based on race. Hitler’s policies were racist. He hated non-Aryans for many historical reasons. But he ultimately thought of the historical or ideological sources of his antagonism as having a genetic basis. Non-Aryans were ultimately considered evil because they were not Aryans. He hated them regardless of their achievements. Whether you were a doctor or a criminal, an artist or a beggar was not important. Racism, again, means discrimination based on racial characteristics. Closer to home, we discriminated against people who were thought to have “one drop” of “African blood.” The only criterion necessary to judge people under such policies was their race. Racist policies are not ludicrous and stupid, they are dangerous.
Education constitutes one of the many policy areas where much harm has been wrought by our not having a way to discuss cultural differences in a rational way. In a virtuous effort to avoid racism, we now emphasize race as a factor in education policy to the exclusion of other possibilities. School systems have been sued because they are said to be racist.[13] Institutional and individual racism could conceivably be reasons that higher percentages of some cultural groups go to college than others. However, there are other possible explanations that merit consideration.[14]
Culturism takes diversity seriously and thus affirms that differences in educational achievement could be the result of cultural diversity. Without being able to consider culture as significant, modern policymakers are thrown back to addressing what are termed “achievement gaps” in terms of race.[15] They correctly acknowledge that there are no differences in the innate capacities of different races.[16] Having eliminated both race and culture as significant factors, the only explanation for the achievement gap left is institutional racism. Such conclusions doom our schools to endless lawsuits and preclude successful reform.
Fifth graders in Taipei, Taiwan spend an average of 13 hours a week on homework; their peers in Minneapolis spend slightly more than four hours a week on homework.[17] In Asian cultures not having completed one’s homework normally results in shame.[18] Completing your homework is positively associated with academic success.[19] Cultural differences provide a complete and satisfactory explanation as to why students in Asian countries do better at math.[20] Culturist explanations can account for some groups doing better than others without resorting to discussions of race. In fact, the multitudes of successful minority students from every background show that educational success has nothing to do with race. Parameters of culture will be explored and defined throughout this book. At a minimum, though, culture includes the beliefs and practices shared by a group.[21] One cannot claim to take cultural diversity seriously without believing that it may be strong enough to impact educational achievement.
Education is not the only area where we cannot progress until we have frank discussions about cultural values and their impact.[22]. Teen pregnancy and crime rates have nothing to do with race. Different rates of such behaviors must, therefore, reflect cultural choices. Drinking a lot and eating fatty foods are often cultural choices. Such foods are enjoyable to members of every race. The resulting shortened life expectancy cannot be profitably discussed as being due to race. When we condition ourselves to always discuss such issues in terms of race we undermine our ability to address them affectively. People cannot change their race. Whereas discussing race can only result in animosity and helplessness, discussing culture can result in positive reform efforts.
Having only extremely volatile words to express the valuation of one’s culture has had a tremendously deleterious effect on the Western nations. Honest discussions of cultural issues degenerate into name-calling. Thus we are left with either hatred or silence. Neither hatred nor silence is conducive to a vital culture. Culturism’s cultural specificity focuses us on important tangible behaviors and problems in ways we can discuss rationally and fruitfully. Being free to discuss culture, as distinct from race, allows us to address many important issues where values, behaviors, and outcomes intersect. The term culturism provides a focus that can serve as a needed antidote in a country that finds itself unable to discuss diversity and values due to fear of racist implications.
Denunciation of racism
Culturism’s potential to be confounded with racism in some contexts necessitates a strong disclaimer. Culturists must do all they can to denounce racists and racism. Race is a biologically insignificant, dubious, and dangerous invented category. Individuals’ attainment in life has virtually nothing to do with their race. Racism can hinder people. But ultimately, peoples’ beliefs and the actions that do or do not result from those beliefs determine who they are and what they will become. Cultural differences are meaningful. Race is an invalid and inconsequential factor that does not deserve the honor of having attention brought to it.
Of course, it is obvious that significant overlap between culture and race sometimes exists. It is equally obvious that culture is not the result of race.[23] Culture and race are only correlated with each other incidentally. People of Japanese descent who are raised in America speak English and have American values. The few people of non-Japanese extraction raised in Japan speak Japanese and live according to Japanese codes. To say that people are who they are because of their race is racist. Racism is wrong, constitutes definitive proof of ignorance, and a reasonable basis for disqualifying anyone from policy discussions. Race does not create or constitute culture.
Race is not even a real biological category. Biologically speaking, humans are categorized as a species. A species is commonly defined as a population that can interbreed within itself, but not with other populations. All humans are therefore of the same species. One does not ask about the race of a baboon; a baboon is a baboon. Similarly, a human is a human. Just as no two members of any species are identical, humans have superficial distinctions. It is biologically meaningless to say that cows that look different from each other are members of different races. Similarly differing environments have caused some differentiating of physical characteristics in humans. But these are not meaningful in a biological sense.
Racist books such as The Bell Curve are deplorable. This book purports to provide evidence that race and I.Q. are correlated. There is no reliable evidence that there are any mental differences between groups of humans.[24] Even if there were some truth to such claims (which there is not), perpetuating such ideas can only lead to horrible results. Culture and behavior are malleable; this provides a worthy justification for discussing cultural differences. But racial characteristics are not profitable topics of discussion. World War Two proved that horrible results can come from talking about the concept of race. Books such as The Bell Curve cannot result in good and can result in a lot of horror. Racism and racists should be denounced at every opportunity.
Unlike the concept of race, meaningful conceptual distinctions can be drawn between cultures. Group values have material effects on the world those groups inhabit. Some cultures practice cutting off the hands of thieves while others temporarily lock them in large concrete buildings. Skin color does not chop off hands or build prisons. Race determining culture is as silly an idea as culture determining your race! Considering the dangers of racism, culturists must be very clear that cultures are not racially determined. Laws concerning behavior are necessary, but laws concerning race are reprehensible. Being able to safely discuss the importance of cultural differences requires clarity on the distinction between race and culture.
Western culture strives to oppose racism. Other cultures have a declared racial basis. Only those who are racially Japanese or are married to Japanese can be Japanese citizens. American culture does not have a racial basis. Europeans are wisely cutting loose from their racial moorings. Western culture was almost destroyed by Hitler’s racism in World War Two. Neither Jesus nor Plato would sanction racism or racism. In a multi-ethnic country like America’s making racial distinctions could be destabilizing and even destroy our country. The viability of Western nations is threatened by considering racial distinctions. We cannot afford to be divided by race again. If you value the survival of the West you should fight racism in Western lands. Racists would divide us, culturists seek to unite us. Western culturists must denounce all racists, racist sentiments, racist organizations, and racial discrimination in the strongest ways possible.
The organization of this book’s argument
This chapter has served as an introduction to the meaning, parameters, and potential usefulness of the term culturism. The rest of this book will flesh out the nature, basis, tools, and nuances of culturist understanding. Culturism is not new. It has a long history. The ways in which it actually manifests itself can be studied. We will look at all brands of culturism, but especially work towards an understanding of the nature of Western culturism. These investigations will suggest roles for citizens and social scientists, as understanding cultures’ effects in the world generally will suggest values and policies. By the end of this book you will be able to analyze a broad range of issues and disciplines from a culturist perspective.
Those who say that all restraints on the individual in the name of cultural health are un-American are wrong.[25] From the Puritans to Prohibition to the G.I. Bill of Rights we have nervously tried to forestall the degeneration of our culture. Chapter Two will provide a thumbnail sketch of the meanings and methods we Americans have used to this end. Far from being un-American, the conscious management of our culture is an American tradition. In a very real way, it defines us; the phrase “self-governance” not only applies to individuals, but to communities, and the country at large as well. Our history contains many inspiring examples of culturism in action. Culturism is not an untried or revolutionary idea. Only after seeing this can we reclaim our role as proud American culturists of the traditional stripe.
Culturism is not only an American tradition, but also an ancient and hallowed tradition in the world. Most all cultures are and have been dedicated to their culturist mission. To understand the cultures involved in our current global conflicts you must understand their ancient heritage. Studying ancient heritages provides you with a deeper appreciation of cultures than studying recent national history ever could. World history reveals much about the ways in which culturist dynamics work generally. The third chapter will thus explore the role of such phenomena as the recent surge of nations, the rise and fall of cultures, and imperialism in world history. Amnesia is as dangerous to cultures as it is to individuals. Without memory we could not be successful individuals and we certainly cannot be successful culturists.
Fully understanding why we must adopt culturism requires a look into anthropology. Western civilization’s futuristic orientation often blinds it to the lessons of the past. And yet, much of how the West currently judges itself stems from a contrast with mankind’s supposed peaceful and environmental past; the myth of the noble savage is alive and well. The fourth chapter will set the record straight; before modern civilizations the world was much bloodier. Diversity is real. Uncritical tolerance of all human diversity within our borders would entail accepting human sacrifice, selling of child brides, slavery, and gang rape. These are or were human norms. Denouncing these activities domestically means modifying our embrace of diversity and adopting a culturist basis of discrimination. An unflinching look into the bloody and disturbing nature of the average pre-Western culture will relieve us of the guilt we feel concerning the domestic imposition and assertion of our Western ways.[26]
After surveying the past we are ready to appreciate how special the Western culture we advocate perpetuating is. Western culture is real, but it is tricky to nail down because it is decidedly progressive. There are, however, strands that make our ancient story coherent. We have striven to liberate ourselves, in fits and spurts, from mental tyranny. We have worked to create a healthy balance of body and mind. Our pantheon of heroes, from Achilles to Martin Luther to George Washington, has been comprised of rebels. We value individualism, self-governance, and rights like no other culture does. These are the easy parts to explain. The West is also made up of both high and low culture. At some level a culture, and ours is no exception, is an ineffable complexity. But, Chapter Five will illuminate some of the Western characteristics Western culturists love.
Chapter Six will provide the ultimate grounding for culturism. The precedents of culturism in natural history show that culturism does not only reside in the minds of men. Of course, just because nature does something does not mean that humans should. We are different from spiders and apes. But we cannot entirely divorce ourselves from the natural world. Nature can suggest what some of the dynamics of a civilization might be.[27] And it is only when we understand why and how cultures evolved that we can understand their general nature and our responsibilities. Cultures form working units out of otherwise unrelated individuals. They hold and pass on information. The primary function of brains is not to make us radical individual skeptics. We are built to absorb culture. Absorbing a human culture takes long years of nurture. These illuminating lessons a study of natural history can provide for culturists will be presented in Chapter Six.
It has been shown that the Western mind is very bad at putting things into contexts.[28] We ourselves are one of the things we do not put into context. Philosophy, psychology, political science, and the understanding of individuals and communities are inextricably interconnected. Western psychology’s heavy emphasis on individualism is not a good basis upon which to create collective mental health. We have social needs. Our acceptance of the idea of absolute individualism has incapacitated our ability to improve the collective mental health of our culture. One way “culturist psychologists” can rectify this situation is by advocating that public space and laws recognize public standards. Creating events that increase our collective understanding of our commonality and consciously creating social organizations are other ways our collective mental health could be improved. As with individuals we must guide our collective habits and happiness by reminding ourselves of our ideals.
The seventh chapter concerns philosophy and its place in culturism’s past and present. Many people are allergic to philosophy because it has become synonymous with abstruse arguments having nothing to do with day-to-day life. This has not always been the case. Plato and Aristotle, for example, were both concerned with man in a social context. Philosophy’s focus on abstractions is relatively recent.[29] The most recent sort of philosophical abstraction, post-modern deconstruction, is dangerous. This chapter is not included for the purpose of illuminating esoteric nuances. The ideas of abstract rights, abstract individualism, and supposedly universal standards have all had tremendously destructive consequences for the Western world. The absolutist versions of such propositions leave no room for philosophers to use tradition to guide us in our efforts to create policies that foster the best approximation of sustainable rights and individualism we can. Philosophy will have a very positive role to play when it returns to its culturist roots.
Inevitably, culturism will be narrowly seen as a reaction to multiculturalism. And, to be sure, much of its significance does come about via its contrast to multiculturalism. Consequently, the penultimate chapter contains a point-by-point comparison of culturism and multiculturalism. Such a comparison can serve as a model for societal discussions concerning the comparative merits and drawbacks of each. As the chapter on philosophy will describe, culturism is not about absolutes. Culturism hopes to help counterbalance our extremes. Diversity will always exist in America. But we can choose to emphasize culturism or multiculturalism. Our having accepted multiculturalism as the national dogma necessitates comparing the two isms before many people will be prepared to seriously entertain the culturist point of view.
The tenth and final chapter of this book will detail some culturist policies. As this introduction has stressed, culturism holds that cultural health should be seen to be a legitimate concern when making policy. Non-Western countries tend do this naturally. The West alone has largely forgotten the perspective that cultures have rights. However, the centrality of rights and individualism to our tradition necessitates our finding a way to pragmatically balance the prerogatives of the individual with the needs of the culture. This effort will be aided by realizing that there are no philosophical absolutes. Your right to be free of eavesdropping is, for example, counterbalanced by our need for reasonable security. Our culture must assert its right to discourage some behaviors. And while many culturists will disagree about what falls inside and outside of our traditions and which policies are justified by our current situations, no one, hopefully, disagrees with the goal of protecting and promoting Western culture in Western lands. Western culture is a great thing and it is our duty to honor and protect it.
One policy is advocated throughout this book: embracing the use of the term “culturism.” Using this word will help to reinvigorate our public discourse. The word culturism can remind us of our traditions and our place in the world. It provides a basis of beliefs upon which we can agree and unite. Culturism is a much needed counterbalance to the divisive philosophy of absolute individual rights that has undermined our ability to distinguish right from wrong and advocate values. Culturism can help reverse the sense of division and alienation from our compatriots that multiculturalism fosters in the culture at large. It can remind us that we are all dependent upon each other. Culturism can be the basis upon which we can pressure our politicians to put Western interests first in international negotiations. Politicians’ employing culturists policies can, in turn, rejuvenate our sense of place, mission, and pride. On top of all of this, adding culturism to our vocabulary can help to make our culture feel like a culture again.
CHAPTER TWO – CULTURISM IN UNITED
STATES HISTORY
Culturism is an American tradition
Many modern American’s first reaction to the suggestion of
culturism might be to call it “un-American.”
Many people mistakenly believe that
This quick survey will also help to flesh out what the term “culturism” denotes. Like most social science topics, culturism cannot be encapsulated easily. Social life being so variegated, the best descriptions of social philosophies often come from lived examples in the historical record. We shall see that culturism has mostly been based on popular movements. Culturist initiatives that find their way into the halls of power usually did not originate there. We will also learn that American culturism has tended to be more persuasive than punitive. Lastly, this chapter will acquaint us with the wide varieties of culturist techniques used by our populace to keep our country safe and strong.
When we use
culturism as a tool of analysis, many disparate and contradictory tendencies in
The Puritans were culturists
The Puritans did
not come to this country for unqualified religious freedom. That misunderstanding results from a poor
grasp of the basics of history and from a conflation of modern and historical
concepts of freedom. People who think
that the Puritans were purely dedicated to religious and social freedom have
forgotten about the
The Puritans were
strict because they were on a mission from God to create and maintain a “City
Upon a Hill.”[34] They were determined to serve as a model for
the rest of the world by providing a highly visible example of excellence. Herein lay the roots of
As staunch culturists, Puritans realized that the upholding of their brand of civilization could not be achieved via giving people license to follow whatever inclinations they had. Like all cultures, theirs was based on presuppositions. Theirs Christian identity envisioned men as being tempted in a fallen world. Puritans thought excellence required self-control, and that self-control required communal control. Towards these ends Puritans utilized extreme measures. Culturist considerations justified, for example, that the penalties for adultery could include death, whippings, fines, branding, being made to wear the letter ‘A’ and standing in the gallows with a rope around one’s neck.[35] Puritans were not squeamish about the methods they used to keep their culture strong. We moderns can agree that their methods were too harsh.
However, Puritans would, in turn, remind us that insistence that all behavior is purely private is also extreme. What we consider purely private matters today often have public implications. For example, Puritans would acknowledge that our choice of mates is a private matter. But once you decide to marry, your decisions have ramifications for your spouse and offspring. Your decisions are no longer purely private. Puritans realized that your family’s affairs also influence the wider community. Puritan matrimonial aspirants had to publish their marriage contracts. Marriage was a public act. It would create a building block for the community. You and your family were not separate from society; families were seen to be the stuff of which society is made.
If a husband did not provide, the Puritan community could divorce and punish him. Children who were not being given proper education and guidance were taken away from their parents. This was seen as a responsibility of the community. “For the Puritan mind it was not possible to segregate a man’s spiritual life from his communal life.”[36] Indeed, if a person dresses in provocative clothes, gambles or leaves his wife and children behind it affects the strength and nature of the community. Apart from watching television, few activities can truly be said to only involve the individual. Even watching television has public import if you have not first taken care of your responsibilities. Though we should not return to Puritanical levels of strictness, acknowledging that private actions affect society helps us to understand culturist values.
We tend to consider all infringements on the individual to be imbued with punitive, irrational and despotic motivations. But such culturist acts were intended for the betterment of individuals as well as the community. Puritans understood that people are not angels and do not always do healthy things with their liberties. Furthermore, they understood that it is harder to be a good Christian in a community filled with sinners than to be a good Christian when surrounded by saints. Modern non-Christian culturists can appreciate the parallel contention that children surrounded by crimes and drugs are more likely to fall prey to criminal lifestyles. Enforcing community standards was always seen as being better for the individuals involved. The Puritans’ culturism was meant to be punitive. It was intended as a classic “win – win” situation.
Some of the culturist solutions and values the Puritans established still receive public approval. With honest reflection most people appreciate that many individual choices have public results. Approval of the practice, started by the Puritans of removing children from abusive homes reflects an understanding that communities should protect individuals. Being overly dogmatic about the division of the private sphere from public control can be dangerous. People that cannot resist driving while drunk need to be controlled. Their public actions can destroy their lives and other’s. The culture has a moral obligation to restrain drunk drivers. But these protections need not negate all the prerogatives of individuals. Culturism seeks to guide, not replace individualism.
Puritans were,
despite appearances to the contrary, strong believers in liberty. They would defend your liberty to engage in
any type of healthy activity you desired.
You could be a doctor or a blacksmith.
You would be encouraged to ether help the poor or be an artist. They would affirm, though, that your very
ability to engage in these endeavors depends upon responsible behavior. Few
personal inclinations could be pursued without health, financial
independence and being able to call upon a social network that will supports your endeavors. Community
support can help you realize your dreams and, ultimately, maintain independence
from others. Communities underlay all
successful attempts by individuals to fulfill their potential. Healthy endeavors strengthen your ability and
the community’s ability to help you achieve your potential.
The terms
“liberty” and “license” have had very distinct and important meanings for much
of our history.
Puritans prohibited license because it robs you of your liberty. True liberty requires control over your bodily and fleshly desires. One will not master any craft or achieve success without restraining his passions. Drinking, gambling and having mistresses were not seen as real examples of liberty. These were seen as forms of slavery to passions. They lead to illness, indebtedness, distrust. Engaging in this sort of behavior for twenty years would greatly limit the choices available to you. Someone who spends their high school years indulging their passions will have far fewer options upon graduating than one who disciplines themselves. Laws against heroin use are not meant to curb people’s freedom, but allow them to avoid the trap of addiction. Cigarette laws provide a more subtle example that reflects our Puritan legacy. Puritans held, in a broader sense, that someone controlled by immediate passions was deemed a slave to them. A person’s crippling inability to control themselves could lead to actually lead to financial slavery. Such were the wages of license. Being able to control one’s passions and make long term plans were central to the Puritans’ definition of liberty.[39]
Ultimately, the Puritans were not only interested in the practical communal or individual benefits of culturism. They wanted be a beacon light to illuminate the backwards Europeans. Thus the Puritan’s missionary zeal was fueled by a disdain for what the rest of the world and history had to offer. But they did not work purely out of disgust. They were inspired by the vision of providing a beautiful vision of the potential of man to posterity. Being an inspiring example of cultural perfection was a dominant aspect of their self-image. But Puritan efforts did not rest on pride. Rather than arrogance, this realization motivated close scrutiny of their personal imperfections. They realized that communal success would not magically result from self-satisfied individuals indulging in sloth. In Puritan culturism, individual excellence was based on seeing continuity between individual, communal and world salvation. The Puritans were altruists who were willing to work hard because they believed in the potential of mankind.
The Puritans considered service to the human race to be a way to both better the world and achieve their spiritual worth.[40] Thinking selfishly, we may protest that we do not wish to be a part of a community of saints. Our vision of ourselves as independent individuals with individual rights means that we do not have to consider a social or global perspective. We need never consider the interests of our society. Puritans knew they had no choice. They knew their culture was in danger. Starving was not that far behind them and lawless frontiers surrounded them. The success that they helped inaugurate makes it possible for us to not think so much about our dependence on a healthy economy. We can take its existence for granted. As we prize our freedom to have both liberties and licensees, we should not embrace the extreme culturism the Puritans adopted. We would do well to realize that we cannot have liberty based on license individually or collectively.
The Puritans deserve to be regarded
as our culturist role models
Puritans deserve to be regarded as our cultural founding fathers. “Puritanism provided the moral and religious background of fully 75 percent of the people who declared their independence in 1776”; possibly “85 or 90 percent would not be an extravagant estimate.”[41] Ben Franklin noted in his autobiography that the two most commonly owned and read books during his time were the Bible and John Bunyan’s Puritan classic, The Pilgrim’s Progress. The Puritans’ influence on our formation is undeniable.
Our national penchant for self-scrutiny in
moral terms provides evidence of the longevity of the Puritan strain in our
culture.
Puritans wrote voluminous diaries searching for imperfections that might lurk in their characters. When they found imperfections they did not take them lightly. Puritans were full of anticipatory self-damnation for sins not yet committed in the name of their angry and unforgiving God. They spent half their lives looking for imperfections, half the time making up for them. Our positive characteristic of freely criticizing our society and government reflects this Puritan trait. The Puritans were at war with their consciences.[42] Ironically and instructively, their self-berating values resulted in their being generally excellent people. Our penchant for criticizing our government on moral terms has resulted in their being relatively benign and corruption free.
Good reasons
support American’s traditionally seeing the Puritans as central to our
self-image as opposed to what were the racist and less educated Southern
regions of our country.[43] Much of what makes
Puritans can also be legitimately claimed as culturist heroes on practical
grounds. They are inspirational. The Puritans built Harvard seventeen years
after they arrived in American and that half of their population starved to
death on a beach. They created the
Mayflower compact and thus deepen our identification with democracy. Taking pride in our having a meritocracy due
to their healthy obsession with rooting out corruption will serve us well in
the future.
Political science and culturism
Individualists who
use American history as a guarantee against all community standards and duty
nearly always do so based upon
The justly famous
phrase from the Declaration of Independence referenced above is the only one in
the document that can be construed as referring to individuals. This document’s independence and liberty
being for the group is bolstered by there being twenty-two references to bodies
of men in the plural.[46]
Our Constitution’s preamble contains the first official words of our new government. The first three words are “We the people.” It does not say, “We the individuals.” The preamble goes on to say that the government is to “promote the general welfare.” That is a culturist goal. It seeks to “secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity.” Securing these things requires a collective effort. This goal necessitates our unifying our disparate political fates into one government. Our Constitution was made because we cannot have liberty when separated. The Constitution was not created to affirm that the individual is an inviolable sovereign.
The Founders did not
spend much time debating the Bill of Rights because they did not think it
applied to the Federal government.
Everyone knew that regulating the personal and private concerns of
individuals was the job and responsibility of the states.[49] Alexis De Tocqueville said as late as 1835
that in the
Washington,
Franklin, Jefferson and the other Founders had a healthy understanding of the
impact culture has on the body politic.
The whole concept of checks and balances was created due to an
understanding that a lack of public spiritedness was the one thing that was
most likely to undermine their new principle of a free government. Famously,
American culturism
must pay an inordinate amount of attention to political science. This is because
This extended treatment of the Founder’s views on the legitimacy of the needs of the community was made necessary by the ideological extremity of our age. Requests for restraint on the part of individuals are too often met with belligerent and indignant legal defiance. These emotional and legal protestations are often based on the misconception that the Founders thought our country’s strength lay in the protection of licentious abandon without regard for the impact on the public. Such interpretations are new and inaccurate. The Founding Fathers created a government. They were not anarchists.
Manifest destiny, the
The lessons of the Texan war for independence and the subsequent Mexican- American War are crucial to informed culturism. These lessons were also taken to be common sense by earlier generations. They were common sense to the Mexican government. They are common sense in every other culture in the world. Dangerously, we have forgotten the lessons exemplified by these battles. We need to learn these lessons again. To do so we must first address a bit of historical revisionism currently budding.
Many people in the
Unlike any other
population, Mexicans can, and do, claim that our country should not only be
divided in opinion, but in fact. This
belief cannot result in anything but a grudge, hostility, and
divisiveness. It brings resentment from
those on both sides of the claim. We
must teach and understand the weakness of this claim if we are to have relative
harmony. The claim that we stole the
land from
To fully
understand this issue we need to ask what “owning” property means.
When
Demographics are a
crucial part of ownership. People were
not eager to go out into these unprotected hinterlands full of Indian warriors
without protection. The Mexican
government knew that saying you own an area you have never settled and is
inhabited by a foreign and hostile population due to a piece of paper
constitutes an exercise in self-delusion.
As a result,
Anglo-Americans
poured in and quickly overwhelmed the tiny local Mexican population. By 1830 there were approximately 25,000
Americans residing in
The Anglo-American
settler’s culture not matching the legal borders caused strain due to
differences in “economics, religious, political and social ideas.”[55] The settlers expected a say in their
government (not a Mexican tradition), public schools to be built (not a Mexican
tradition), freedom of religion (not a Mexican tradition), laws in English (not
a Mexican tradition) and protection from Indians (the Mexican Army could not
control this area). Telling a people
with a foreign culture, institutions and language that you own their land is
futile. Realizing the gamble was going
sour,
The Texans
officially won the technical sovereignty that had been theirs all along in
1836. Much of the rest of the previously
Mexican “owned” area was ceded following the Mexican-American war of 1845. Herein lays the claim that it was
“stolen.” But this claim has two major
weaknesses. First of all, it was largely
Indian land. Secondly,
This historical
epoch contains many important culturist lessons. Cultural demographics have enormous political
implications. Santa Anna invited in
Anglo settlers because knew that demographics determine ownership. He showed less savvy in his understanding of
the cultural importance of demographics.
The American settler experience showed that changing your cultural
identity does not result from a legal procedure. This episode also shows us that it is hard to
fill territory with a foreign population and still control it. That war and secession can result from such
attempts is the lasting lesson of the
Immigration and traditional culturist
conundrums
Nativism was the
first American mass movement based on fear of immigrants. Particularly, they carried forth what had
been a longstanding Puritan fear of Catholics.
Puritans viewed their fiercely guarded right to follow their consciences
as being special via comparing it to the Pope’s claim to dictate Catholic
doctrine and conscience. Nativists saw
allegiance of the monarchical structure of the Catholic Church as incompatible
with a belief in democracy. In their era
the Pope ruled one-third of
Culturism’s
effectiveness requires that it recognize facts as well as ideals. Wherever Catholics started colonies the
result has been oligarchy, low levels of education, corruption, poverty and a
poor distribution of wealth.
The political
manifestation of the Nativist movement was the Know-Nothing political
party. On the basis for maintaining the
cultural integrity of our democracy, the Know-Nothings elected six State
governors, secured control of nine State legislatures, and had forty-three
representatives in Congress. Their
presidential candidate, Millard Fillmore, got almost 25 percent of the vote in
1856.[56] Catholic participation in the Civil War
quelled all fears of their disloyalty and ended the Know-Nothings. These nativist political parties cannot be
removed from
Unfortunately,
sometimes racism and culturism overlap and thus become hard to
distinguish. The 1882 the Chinese
Exclusion Act suspended all immigration from
Nuances take
center stage when making such distinctions.
To appreciate them we need to look at historical setting of Chae Chan
Ping v.
So was the Supreme
Court’s upholding the Chinese Exclusion Act case unenlightened racism or
rational culturism? From one very valid
perspective it is wrong to kowtow to the tendencies of mobs when making
laws. Abstract morality arguments would
definitely argue against acknowledging such behavior. Then again, one has a cultural duty to keep
one’s civilization from chaos. During
the 1992 Rodney King riots in
Irrational fears
fueled irrational civil chaos and disorder in each of these cases. The Supreme Court was certainly neither
ignorant of the demands of abstract morality nor the often brutal nature of
mankind. Accepting that people will riot
for irrational reasons, the Court had to decide if our domestic civil order was
more important than the rights of foreign people to immigrate into our
country. For most countries that is an
easy call. Does a universal right to be
in
Currently
excluding Chinese on the basis of race would be groundless. Chinese immigration no longer results in race
riots. Culturism’s being able to
vindicate one sort of policy in one era and exclude it in another reflects its
not being based on the existence of universal absolutes. Historical situations, international
treaties, ideological concerns, general social context and the effects on
individuals must always be considered when making policy. Trying to end discussions by invoking
“Culturism” or “Racism” as abstract absolutes will lead to inappropriate social
policy. In the absence of compelling
reasons, Western culturist values should not invoke any ethnic
information. To the extent possible,
race should be ignored when making policy judgments in the
Sometimes
immigration has been met with optimistic and positive culturism. “The
Americanization Movement” provides a positive culturist role example worth
emulating. Americanization was an
enormously popular movement that swept
The
Americanization movement protected the immigrant for culturist purposes. Between labor strikes, political radicalism,
and the oncoming First World War, Americanizers found reason to worry about the
solvency of
Liberal Americans rightfully take pride in the Progressive movement being amongst their forerunners. Many who feel akin to them do not know about or take pride in the Progressive movement’s role in Americanization. They would do well to remember the Progressive Platform of 1912 proposed Federal action “to promote their assimilation, education and advancement.”[61] Americanization provides a positive model of tolerance for the progressive minded to emulate. As World War One approached people passed discriminatory laws against immigrants and the calls for restrictive immigration laws got tougher. Some have noted that this negative agenda seeped into the Americanization movement. To some degree it did. But Americanizers still worked against restriction. The model was always one of opportunity. Americanizers always inveighed against discriminatory measures and injustice aimed at immigrants. By and large, in an atmosphere of increasing intolerance, the Americanizers kept their faith in the ability of all immigrants to become positive American citizens.
The Americanization Movement was one of the largest and longest lived public crusades ever. Possibly no other civic movement involved so many parts of the American society. The Y.M.C.A., industries, private citizens of all stripes, immigrants themselves, Federal and State governments as well as chambers of commerce, schools, myriads of organizations, presidents and social workers contributed. Events happened in churches, conferences, in print and in community centers. While some American culturist movements had been popular and others top-down; the Americanization movement provides the most widely accepted American culturist movement ever. The Americanization movement attests to vibrant history of positive and vibrant culturist civic involvement. Not only can those of the progressive ilk, but all Americans take pride in this emanation of our culturist heritage.
Sometimes culturism gives you clear cut answers. The 1882 Federal immigration policy restricted “lunatics, convicts, idiots, prostitutes, and person likely to become public charges.”[62] In the following decades sufferers from tuberculosis and illiterates were added to the list of undesirables. Those who hold universalistic, absolute ethics might argue that importing all the sick peoples of the world into your country s the right thing to do. Culturism would not that such a stance is not universal, extremely eccentric, not (as these acts confirm) of our tradition, and likely unsupportable. On the other hand, not being about universal truths, if the idiots had family here we might want to allow them to enter our country. Maintaining our tradition of providing asylum for those facing oppression might dictate accepting a few people who are likely to become public charges. While these acts offer a little controversy, the 1924 Immigration Act warrants consideration.
The 1924
Immigration Act set quotas for immigrants from each nation based on the ethnic
population proportions that had existed in 1890. Had this been purely racist, culturists would
reject it a priori. Were race a main
factor we would have to look at it with extreme skepticism. While some proponents of this Act were
textbook racists, we have to remember that this Act mainly targeted
whites. It was an attempt to exclude
Southern and Eastern Europeans. It is
possible to see this exclusion of certain types of “whites” as largely
culturist. Many Italian immigrants
“brought with them a hostile attitude toward the law” from
The right of a nation to control immigration in its own interest is
recognized worldwide. But at what point
a country with a welcoming tradition, like
Popular moral culturism
The
First and Second Great Awakenings were huge religious movements that swept
Standing six feet
two inches with blond hair and ice-blue eyes, Charles Grandison Finney was one
of the best known preachers of the Second Great Awakening. In an amazing show of culturist insight
concerning the connection between the personal, the social and the economic,
merchants and manufacturers called on his services to try to help combat
lawlessness and raucous behavior in the East Coast boomtown of
The Second Great
Awakening greatly increased interest in pre-existing organizations called
“benevolence societies.” These
organizations shared a common agenda with those who flocked to the Great
Awakening rallies. They also shared
Where looting and “mobbism” by gangs of young roughnecks were a problem this generation of culturists set up Sunday Schools.[67] By 1836 there may have been 120,000 children in Sunday school because of the Sunday School Union. Between 1850 and 1860 the Tract Society sold and gave away between nine and ten million tracts a year. The American Bible Society had handed out 6 million Bibles by 1849.[68] The Home Missionary Society assisted an annual average of 1000 ministers.[69] At he end of the Civil War, Jay Cooke, the head of the Sunday School Union and railroad financier, gave money to start churches along the Northern Pacific line, for he was sure religion meant social stability and greater profit.[70] These benevolence societies were huge and furthered the religious basis of our culturist heritage.
The Second Great Awakening and benevolence societies reveal the depth and breadth of American culturism. They were complimented Catherine Beecher’s army of women that went west to civilize the frontier via teaching school.[71] These frontier culturists were not a matter of a single government agency trying to root out corruption. The Great Awakenings and the benevolence societies, the teaching missionaries were (as the Americanization movement) popular and widespread results of an active volunteering citizenry. Like their Puritan forefathers this generation of reformers knew that people often forget the difference between liberty and license. They continued our perennial and necessary culturists focus on the threats that spiritual and cultural corruption represent to self-government and our uniquely free society.
These popular moral crusaders led us to our apocalyptic confrontation over slavery. But these cultural reform movements were not out of energy. Before the Civil War ended northern teachers started pouring into the south to teach the soon to be free ex-slaves. Many know that this happened as a result of the federal government’s Freedmen’s Bureau. But most of the thousands of white female teachers were moralistic missionaries sent by grassroots organizations. These women went to teach morals as well as literacy. They wanted to share the outlook that said diligence was the key to uplift. The Federal government’s efforts did successfully implement social changes in the South. Unfortunately, they did not improve the white southern culture enough for the improvements to last. The message of uplift was not enough in this case. But for our purposes it is important to note that these women were called “culturalists.”[72] They provide definite proof of the benevolence and existence of culturism in our history.
While popular
culturism continued its crusades for temperance, morality and literacy another
large threat to our moral order rose on the horizon. The emerging industrial revolution was
spawning class exploitation, child labor, massive immigration and environmental
degradation. These did not sit well with
our self-image as a godly new world that was to set an example for others to
follow. It violated our American
exceptionalism premise that our country would suffer from the same ills as
The Progressives differed from their predecessors in they spent more of their energies on regulating society from the top-down than the bottom-up. They took to trust busting, regulating labor exploitation, education, women suffrage, health and safety concerns, environmental issues and Prohibition by getting laws passed. They understood that the massive size of the new industrial enterprises meant that they could not be regulated by moral persuasion alone. Corporations have, famously, neither a body to kick nor a soul to damn. Culturist regulations were needed to keep our society decent, humane and free. Progressive efforts were also distinguished from the culturist efforts that preceded them by reliance upon science and experts. But beneath their dependence on experts and science lay the very Protestant agenda of rooting out corruption.
Progressives taking a more top-down approach than their predecessors did not mean that they were unconcerned with the impact of individual virtue on society. Progressivism, contrary to popular belief, reached its peak of popularity during an era of wealth.[74] They were not only concerned with economic deprivation. They recognized that the moral underpinnings of our character were based upon the individual needing to overcome his evil tendencies to gain wealth and sustenance. Wealth undermines the self-control necessary to sustaining personal and social liberty. Progressives often came from old money. They worried that the newly rich would create a plutocracy of greed that would not understand the wealthy people’s role as exemplars of virtue in creating a sustainable society. Culturism is not just about the morality of the poor and it is not just important in times of poverty.
Other example of the deep grass root culturist understanding of the progressives comes from their community organizing. People have battled over what defines so broad a movement. One source of the confusion comes from their deviating from the traditional grass roots nature of our culturism. But they branched out more than they left that tradition. Progressives created an estimated 400 settlement houses. These were homes where immigrants could come and get help, comfort, education and affiliation. They generally were set up to help struggling immigrants adjust to their new cultural surroundings. Progressives also created social organizations to combat the isolating nature of the industrial age. Since youth, in particular, did not have any place to go they created such organizations as The Boy Scouts, Y.M.C.A. / Y.W.C.A. and the P.T.A. are just a few positive remnants of their grassroots activities. Their community building and interaction show that they did not abandon our long tradition of door to door culturism.
After the First World War was over
progressivism only had one last huge culturist victory: Prohibition. Those who say that
Culturism and Schools
All societies have
to teach their young about the cultures they will live in. The religions, morals and rituals of tribes
were taught via apprenticeship and initiation ceremonies. Without this indoctrination, the tribes’
cultural identity and existence would not last in to the next generation. Schools meet this cultural imperative for the
modern world. It has been suggested that
the fervor with which Puritans educated their youth was fueled by their
distance from civilization.[76] For most of our history schools were
a local institution spontaneously created by settlers on a voluntary basis. This fact reflects the Protestant propensity
for education, but also reflects the natural socializing function of schools. In time
schools have been justified with appeals from everything to republicanism, the
need to communicate with God and personal transformation to the need for voters
to be educated, civilizing non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants and furthering hygiene. But through out it all schools have been
concerned with cultural health.[77]
Horace Mann is known to many as the ‘Father of our Public School System.” Few know that he took a demotion from the Secretary of the Massachusetts Senate to accept the Secretaryship of the newly formed Massachusetts State Board of Education. He deliberated for a month before taking the job. The factor that convinced him that he had to take the position was an anti-Catholic riot. [78] He saw the school system as a mechanism by which our multicultural society could be made more harmonious. He famously considered schools the “balance wheel of society.”
Emphasizing the
distinctive virtues of the majority culture has been the default method of
socializing since public education began.
Textbooks used in
This also meant that Protestantism was the basis of curriculum. [80] When, in the mid-1800’s our schools started becoming public this meant that public dollars funded Protestant education. Catholics resented this fact and the famous Catholic schools began. The fact that Catholics had to leave them to maintain their distinctiveness has been used to show that public schools are discriminatory agents of cultural imperialism. It can also be used to show that diversity interferes with common purpose and national projects. At any rate, both readings confirm that cultures naturally seek to advocate and perpetuate their distinction modes of life via schools.
The Progressive educators brought culturism to a whole new level. They realized that they lived in a time when socializing youth to carry on traditions was not enough. They sought to adjust the young to the new constantly changing world of industrial society.[81] John Dewey, the leading Progressive educational theorist, is famous for individualizing instruction. Thus he was instrumental in formulating the focus on individual achievement and actualization that now dominates schools. But he did so to ensure a “well-balanced, happy and prosperous society.” in order that “civilization can go on.”[82] Dewey was not trying to liberate the individual at the expense of society. He just realized that success in a progressive society requires that individuals need to be able to take initiative and adapt. The Progressive focus on individuals was designed to facilitate their adjustment to society.
When the Great
Depression hit education was one of the main tools used to stabilize the
country. In the spring of 1935 nearly
five million youth were out of school and unemployed.[83] The National Youth Administration (NYA) was
set up to help them find a place in society.
Showing a great sensitivity to the dynamics of culturism, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt decentralized the program.
Money flowed from the government, but the projects the NYA undertook
were decided upon locally. The youth
seeing that their work helped the local community endeared them to their
communities and their communities to them.
Showing even more culturist wisdom,
Another wonderful demonstration of schools being a wonderful culturist tool occurred during World War II. As the war drug on the need for soldiers was such that we had to start recruiting illiterate men. The Army set up what had to be the world’s largest successful intensive literacy program ever: the Special Training Units (STUs).[85] Nearly a quarter million men gained literacy via this program during the two and a half years that it existed. Being both a boon to the individuals involved and a necessity to our nation’s survival, the STUs provide a stellar example of a culturist win-win.[86] We need only regret that we had to wait for war to recognize this redemptive culturist power. Schools could also be used in ad hoc ways to remediate needs before emergencies arise.
The G.I. Bill, it is widely known, helped ease the transition back into the economy for soldiers returning from World War II. It is also widely known that this was a culturist triumph. It set the foundation for our post-war boom that solidified our status as a superpower. Less concretized in our collective memory is the fact that when the Sputnik satellite was launched by the Russians we responded with a culturist emphasis on the sciences in the schools. Duty to self and duty to nation dovetailed and augmented the foundation for our continued economic boom the G.I. Bill had laid. Since our earliest years we have used schools to the traditional end of stabilizing and perpetuating our culture. These goals have also been met by ad hoc educational programs in frontiers, technological transformations, economic collapse, war and peace. Schools are an especially invaluable culturist tool for dynamic republics.
Culturism during wartime
The extreme situation of war highlights vulnerabilities. Wars threaten our very existence. They often cause panic and result in emphasizing national unity. Things that would violate our basic cultural traditions and tenets become acceptable – if not necessary – at such times. Individualism fades in significance and culturist needs takes precedence. In a normally free society the contrast between lax peacetime traditions and constrictive wartime practices cannot be missed. The contrast shows the connection between culturism and security at its starkest. Knowing about the historic record of our society during war provides a necessary guide for successfully navigating such extremes.
National security
has been used as a pretext for abusing our traditional liberties. The Federalists used the fear of subversion
by radicals who sympathized with the French Revolution to pass the Alien and
Sedition Acts of 1798. These gave
Federal prosecutors the power to apprehend, remove and restrain “all natives,
citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government” above
fourteen years of age and not naturalized.
But the Federalists only used the act to attack their critics. There was no danger. This law being passed shows that degrading
our freedoms in the name of national security is not something to which
Restrictions of freedom in the name of national security are not, however always unjustified. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and locked up agitators, draft disrupters, deserters and demonstrators during the Civil War. As is their intention, people who foment disruption and dissention during a war compromise its effective prosecution. Losing the Civil War would have greatly impacted our future. These points may appear too obvious to merit mention. But acceptance of these assertions is necessary to claim that during war individual liberties must sometimes be compromised. This does not mean that small wars excuse an abandonment of traditional liberties. The seriousness of the threat to our sovereignty must be weighed in making such decision. Basic rights are not absolute. Historical circumstance constitutes a traditional and legitimate qualifier.
At the start of
World War I, one - third of the foreign born were from enemy countries. As
In July of 1915, a U.S. Secret Service agent uncovered German - American plots to bomb an American Steamship and disrupt our munitions production. Fear of such acts inspired the Espionage Act. This law outlawed any “disloyal” or “scurrilous” talk about our form of government. During the War thousands of Germans were interred for charges as light as uttering pro-German statements in public.[88] Charles Schenck’s case was the first the Supreme Court heard concerning the legality of this Act. Schenck had mailed some anti-draft pamphlets to draftees and others. Off the record Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the “squashy sentimentality” of those who did not realize a man’s destiny was to fight made him “puke.”[89] Holmes believed that society had a right to defend itself. In his opinion, upholding the Espionage Act he said that speech could be restricted when there was a “clear and present danger.”
Was the distribution of anti-war literature during the war dangerous? We can now, the war long won, say that it was harmless. We must realize, however, that we can never know if the unfolding of this unpopular war would have been different had thousands of enemy sympathizers and agitators against the draft been free to spread dissent as it was being waged. Making value judgments without knowing how things might have turned out without the action being considered taking place can be labeled the “Unknown Futures Fallacy”. This fallacy tends to make us overly sanguine. In hindsight the outcome always seems ensured. Was it better to be safe or sorry at the time? The Court made it very clear that freedom of speech is situational, not absolute. Justice Holmes left it for us to do the hard work of figuring out when that speech presents a clear and present danger.
Those who disparage all forms of wartime culturism often point to the racist nature of the internment of Japanese and Americans of Japanese descent during World War II. The memory of our tendency towards irrational racism during war needs to be reiterated, they tell us, to ensure that such a thing never happens again. On this basis, Americans of Japanese descent have demanded and received multiple government apologies and repeated financial awards based on the unwarranted and racist nature of the internment. This rendition of history serves as a weapon against all who would talk of wartime culturist necessities in a realistic manner.
Our having removed British Citizens from the East Coast cities and interred them during the War of 1812 shows that such acts are an American tradition and not necessarily racist. Was the fact that it had been Americans of German descent that plotted to sabotage our steamships and munitions during World War I coincidental? Is it reasonable to suspect that recent immigrants might have more of an attachment to their particular homeland than random Americans? If a tendency to care about your country of origin is natural to all immigrant groups, regardless of race, the internment decisions can be said to reflect cultural, rather than racial, tendencies. If sentiments have an impact on actions, the relocations during war may have been rational.
During the Second World War we kept to our
tradition. Germans, Italians,
Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians and Japanese and first-generation American
citizens were expelled, arrested and interred.
We now know that Japanese had spy rings and tens of thousands of
loyalists on the West coast. Divulging the number and nature of our ships, let
alone sabotage would have hurt our war effort.
In the relocation camps many occupants formed pro-Japanese military
organizations, terrorized pro-American detainees and publicly prayed for
Those who would
decry all efforts at curtailing speech also invoke McCarthyism. McCarthyism also happened during war
time. If you add up American fatalities
from
Those who now say
that we would have won the Cold War without clearing the State Department and
Defense departments should keep the Unknown Futures Fallacy in mind. McCarthyism often gets conflated with the
actions of the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee’s
investigation into the
During war the relationship of rights to freedom becomes starkly. Cultures cannot survive with absolute license. Violations of speech for safety tend to be popular. Zoot Suiters exercising their right to wear flamboyant clothes while material was being rationed in order that we might fight a war against two fascist governments reveals an astounding ignorance of culturism. We all need to recognize that guarantees of rights in a country that has lost a war do not exist. While the government was within its rights to enforce rationing of items necessary to the prosecution of the war, having dress codes or condoning riots would unnecessarily violate our traditions. It would, again, be hard to sustain that people wearing flashy clothes during a time of war threatened our security.
Just as attacking groups without cause or due process is wrong, tarring all attempts to control individuals in the public good as “racist” is wrong. During wartime individualism must allow considerations of culturism. During wartime discriminatory culturism sometimes becomes justifiable. Those who say our victory was obviously assured regardless of whether we relocated Japanese and Americans of Japanese descent from sensitive military areas are falling victim to the Unknown Futures Fallacy. War is a clear and present danger. Still, we must be leery of the tendency to be overly heavy-handed during wartime. As usual, history can be our guide to what is and is not acceptable. We should take heart from the fact that violations of rights have been successfully rescinded at the conclusion of wars. Adhering to absolutist standards of individualism during wartime could definitely present a “clear and present” danger to all of us.
Culturism is not just for wartime, however, and it is not just practiced in the face of clear and present physical dangers. We have traditionally believed that the greatest threats to liberty come from cultural corruption. A wide variety of means have been utilized to keep license from compromising our liberty. Legislation, political groundswells, education, celebrations, the Civil War, speeches, censorship and religious appeals have all played their part in sustaining our free and prosperous nation. Extreme circumstances, such as war, often cause fear. Such situations can cause panic and rash judgments. But our traditional culturism has been overwhelmingly positive. Persuasion has been used more often than coercion. Outside of times of war, coercion has shown itself to be much less practical than persuasion. Just because not all dangers are clear and present, does not mean that we should not be on the lookout for trends that portend declension. Our vibrant tradition of culturism provides our best hope for safely steering our country to a positive future.
CHAPTER
THREE - CULTURISM IN WORLD HISTORY
Culturism in the world today
Our sense of
nation is special. The
Muslim countries
are not racist. They are however very
culturist. Muslim countries are for
Muslims. A Muslim woman in
But the question is, “Do these societies have the right to define themselves?” Culturism is premised on the idea that cultures do have the right to define themselves. Up until recently, it would have been obvious to Americans that we have that right. The current fad dictates, however, that individual rights are a universal aspiration that precludes and distinctions being made on any criteria between anybody. Individual rights advocates frame all attempts and forging unity an unprecedented outrage. Culturism is designed to temper that extremist brand of individualism. In a world where our competitors have control of their cultures, our dedication to anarchy gives us a disadvantage. Nations define themselves and we have done so via connection with culture, histories, ideals and destinies. Maintaining our extremely high amount of individualism based on creed will ultimately require that we return to our historically normal levels of appreciation for our cultural underpinnings.
This survey of
culturism in world history will make us better culturists. Basing much of our sense of culturism on race,
like Asian countries, would be suicidal and stupid in a multiethnic country
such as ours. Adopting the theocratic
culturism of the Muslim world would run counter to our progressive nature, core
belief systems and historical commitments.
We are hurt by our cultural tendency towards disdain for the past and
things outside of our borders. American
exceptionalism has its costs. A quick
study of world history will help us to understand what that means. Protecting our progressive nature requires that we are not totally blind to the
longstanding culturist dynamics.
Birth of deep cultural roots
Cultures are not created easily. They evolve over long histories and through many battles. Great statesmen have to arrive and become luminaries in the cultural coin. Artists have to set the common tone of the people. Battles have to be fought for the culture to have a ground upon which to thrive. Philosophers must hammer these histories into moral codes. A sense of cultural honor has to take shape. Legends and rites must spread. Institutions must be created to perpetuate these elements of culture. This is not a process that can be willed in a generation.
World Cultures all start with stories. Islam has the Koran. Western Civilization started with the Homeric
epics. Our modern universalistic
traditions have their roots in the New Testament of the Bible. Hinduism has its Vedas.
Culturist history’s biggest lesson is that history matters. History creates peoples. The virtues and morals of these stories define a people. History sets the agendas for which they will die and so grounds their continuance. It is not a coincidence that all great civilizations have an intimate attachment to their own story as well as their own side of the story. Friedrich Nietzsche noted that objectively knowing your culture is one of many can undermine your attachment to your particular culture. But, rather than detachment, a deeper understanding of the relationship of founding myths and history to cultures fosters a deeper appreciation and attachment.
Modernism started with science and started the disintegration of our attachment to history. Nietzsche’s denigration of myth was borne of his applying scientific criteria to history. Science prides itself on its being able to distinguish ‘fact’ from ‘fiction.’ Science prizes that which is new. Old science books are considered out of date and of little value. At the same time science has strengthened our belief in universal principles. It has thereby loosened our attachment to the particular (our particular history being the pertinent example for this argument). This is a distortion of serious consequence to our sense of culturism. And, since we are so powerful, it is a distortion of serious consequence to the world. It would be a shame if our infatuation with science and its promised future eclipsed our love affair with our history.
The Western story starts with Achilles. He was our main warrior in the battle between the Greeks and the Trojans. But Achilles’ honor was slighted by a leader. He moped around wondering what the use of fighting for glory was when it was so easily taken away. When his best friend, and probably lover, was slain by the enemy he rejoined the battle with ferocity. His re-engagement and wrath spelled doom for the enemy Trojans. Significantly, Achilles knew he was going to die in this effort. He had been told that he could either live a long boring life or go out in a blaze of glory avenging his companion’s death. He chose the latter.
Achilles embodied
individual glory being gotten via struggle as a virtue for the Greeks. To this day Westerners dream of
distinguishing fame born of valiant efforts.
To the extent that you dream of fame and glory Achilles breathes. Artistic, political and athletic competition
permeated Greek life. Each having a shot
at glory, instead of just a King, was the basis upon which they founded the
world’s first democracy. It was the
awareness of their culture’s special dedication to their individual
explorations and identity that motivated them in their epic battles against the
great tyrannical theocracy of
When Athenian democracy killed Plato’s teacher Socrates, he decided that there was a truth beyond that of honor and glory so revered by his culture. Plato used literature to vindicate his teacher and to replace the values that had caused the mob to kill him. Socrates’ had followed ethics into a world where there were truths that were higher than those of the State. Socrates was the fallen Achilles in the battle for higher ethics. This development bolstered the right of the individual to question the State on higher grounds. Socrates died for our right to think, and the questioning and probing has characterized all of our progressive eras. Unfortunately his love of universals still blinds us to the fundamental reality of diversity to this day.
The collapse of
This traditional definition of the renaissance being based on a recovery of our historical memory has encodes important lessons. Without knowledge of a changing history and our past values we were stuck in a tyranny borne of amnesia. Knowing about arrangements, particularly from one’s own history, other than the one you currently know increases your flexibility. When we were sure that meekness had always been the only source of glory we were stuck. When we discovered that conquering and questioning had been used in the service of finding fame, new venues for action were opened. Collectively, understanding the variety in your past provides flexibility. In this case, it reconnected us with our love of glory.
Science has, in this regard, resulted in another sort of Dark Ages of sorts. Our past has become foreign to us. Science’s constantly bearing fruit has exaggerated our Christian tendency to locate our glory in the future. Early Western scientific practitioners were ruthlessly hounded and killed by the Catholic Church. This has caused a further disenchantment with all that is old. Thus our story and its relevance have been nearly extinguished from our conscious memory. Thus, as history is our guide, we should be aware that stability and flexibility might suffer as a result of this amnesia. Indeed our unquestioning individualism and incredulity at culturist values is a prime example of the inflexibility borne of amnesia.
Another culturist lesson to be learned from this retelling of the story of Western Civilization is how pervasive nature and depth of cultural tendencies. Though very few folks can tell you much about Achilles we still embody his fighting spirit that has been our constant secret to dominance. Individual glory and war against our destinies populate our advertisements. We are living Achilles’ dream. The Western world is unique in its constant struggle against the status quo. Status quo is a pejorative for us. As the Trojan’s chief warrior Hector found out, you can run from Achilles, but you will never get away.
Individual conscience is something we prize. This clearly shows our debt to history. Both Socrates and Jesus strove against the arbitrary nature of temporal powers. We, traditionally, have believed in a higher truth that transcends time and space. Socrates thought you could find this through questioning everything, Jesus thought you could get it by intuitively tuning into the higher truths emanating from God. Neither saw authority as being grounded in this world. These strains are so deep in us that only when confronted with radically different traditions do we realize that this is specific to our culture. Our tendency to believe in logically derived, self-evident universal truths is, paradoxically, very Western.
Herein lies another culturist lesson: if you do not delve deeply into your cultural heritage you are not likely to understand it very well. Our current version of our progenitor’s dismissal of authority has left us thinking that no moral codes can constrict us. No one can tell us what is right and wrong. While neither Socrates nor Jesus would have equated culturist consciousness with pure morality; neither would have advocated doing anything immoral. They were both notoriously strict moralists. The perversion of our traditional sense of individual truth into a license for debauchery stems directly from the shallowness of our understandings of our own traditions.
Another lesson we
shall see, if we venture forth out of the history of Western Civilization, is
that our values cannot be taken for granted.
Constant striving for glory against the status quo is not something
neither Asian nor Muslim cultures value.
In
Nietzsche was, in the long run, wrong. At first seeing that each civilization has its own stories and mores might turn you into a relativist. But once you come to understand that fundamental cultural stories’ morals are diverse, your preference for what you know reemerges strengthened. Asian elders do not need your opinion. The Koran’s principles are not to come up for a vote. We resent their refusal to consider what we think. This sort of encounter with cultures other than our own makes us more grateful than ever that our Greek forefathers came up with the idea of individual conscience and democracy.
Christianity and science, though they battle, do have a common strain. They both claim to expound universal principles. Neither claims to be a product that only applies to the West. Thus our historical ghost sends us out to convert others to our obviously universal principles in a way that other cultures do not. Failing to realize that our values are not universal means we do not have an appropriate feeling of culturist protection towards our own culture. If it is universal it does not require protection. Not realizing our truths are only ‘self evident’ to us, leads us to not valuing other culture’s sovereignty. Understanding that our tendencies are just ours makes us value our culture more and dismiss other’s less.
Chinese history and culturist pride
Traditionally the
Chinese have described their country as the ‘middle kingdom’ or more broadly
‘the center of the earth.’ They have had
a reason to do so!
The seventy year old finds that it is self-evident that all men are created unequal. Babies are not equivalent to their parents. Parents are above children. Honor, peace and strength come when a child has the wisdom to respect and obey his parents. Doing your homework shows a more mature understanding than throwing temper tantrums and insisting on your right to do what you want. Rebellious and disrespectful children bring chaos, weakness and dishonor. Their long history has also told them that this formula of reciprocal duties that works in the family also works for the state and citizen. Continuing the analogy, they would note that a good parent would not tell a child to do anything that was not in that child’s best interest. Good citizens obey their government.
Here we see the importance of culture to statecraft. We admire youth as holding the key to a new future. Their view of the impertinent fifteen year old is not as indulgent as our own. We see a relationship between the child and the parent’s interest, but we value our individual conscience above all else. Westerners will only willingly consent to laws they have made for themselves. Asian culture sees much more of a connection between the glory of the family, the country, the culture and the individual. We need to see that our current ideas about the absolute nature of individual sovereignty in the face of all wisdom results from a poor reading of our own history. It needs to be put in international, as well as historical, perspective.
Chinese group orientation comes as much from an appreciation of their storied history and the historical depths of their cultural precepts as it does from reactionary racism. The Shang dynasty, that spread the system of writing that they still use today, was founded in 1650 BC! Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism each date from the 6th century BC. Creations of the Han dynasty of 206 BC to 220 BC include the invention of civil service exams, textbooks on zoology, botany, chemistry and astronomy and the creation of acupuncture. The Tang dynasty lasted from 618 AD to 907 AD and left a tradition of literature and art as a legacy. The Song lasted from 960 AD to 1279 AD. It added gunpowder, landscape painting, moveable type and porcelain to the list of creations that fill Chinese with pride.
Knowing this we can start to appreciate the pride Chinese feel in their civilization. Would anyone with such an illustrious background not be proud of their forefather’s accomplishments? The answer is “Yes.” We fail to appreciate our forefather’s accomplishments daily. Your accepting the age analogy at the beginning this section (assuming you accepted it) provides an example. While our history is obscure at 1650 BC, the Homeric epic starring Achilles likely dates from 1100 BC. We created democracy in the fifth century BC. Our philosophy and arts from that time are astoundingly beautiful. We also invented the flying buttress cathedral (1200 AD), modern physics (1600 AD) and television (1927 AD)! This is not to take anything away from the glory of the Chinese. It is only to show that you lose a tremendous source of pride and solidarity when you forget your history.
Personal and cultural memory
You may have
noticed gaps between the dates of the Chinese dynasties that were listed
above. As every civilization,
This is one of the most important culturist lessons the Chinese can teach us.[96] Our one renaissance should teach us the culturist lesson that reconstituting and going forward requires remembering our past. Crawling out of our dark ages was done by remembering our Greek and Roman heritage. Caution should be wrought from recognizing that the reason the Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages is because they were a time in which we lost historical consciousness. Our great advances being based on our reconnecting with our past was mentioned before and we get safer every time it is repeated. The Chinese have less of a danger than us of disappearing because they have not forgotten the necessity of historical consciousness to getting rich civilizations out of Dark Ages.
The Chinese even
have culturist heroes to serve as role models for those trying to forestall the
ravages of the culturist cycles between golden ages and dark ages. Zhong Huamin was an expert Chinese culturist
who worked in the
When civilizations are trying to reestablish themselves they can expect their art to be iconoclastic. This static art stabilizes the national identity. Once stabilized, the culture begins to bear original fruit again. Renaissance did not produce much new in cultural thought. Much of the art is stiff and iconoclastic. But this step cannot be avoided. You cannot expect freeform originality and innovation to come out of periods of historical chaos. The renaissances’ greatness comes from a conscious attempt to emulate the glories of the past. And it is, as a result, much more dynamic than the arts of the Dark Ages. Their writing was non-existent at first, but soon exploded too. Alighieri Dante’s mix of classical and Christian iconography is astounding. Cultural vitality is always based upon a historical foundation.
The molding of
character was the main point of ancient
Our current assumption that glorifying the country leads to a diminution of the importance of the individual is a very immature view. It assumes that there is no relationship between people and the country of which they are a part. Great nations take pride in their history and accomplishments. Our valuing individual glory, originality and conscience should not be thought of as being in opposition to our civilization. Our current refusal to advocate and sacrifice for our collective greatness is disrespectful, ignorant and unappreciative. Pride in culture can be a great source of pride and inspiration to the individual. If we studied history we would know this. We are collectively and individually greater for immersions in our culture’s histories.
Culture has consequences
When the Greeks
and Romans fell the Catholics took over
The Catholic Church responded to Luther’s challenge with a two pronged approach called the counter-reformation. Prong number one was an intensification of the war on all non-sanctioned doctrine. This included killing people that translated the bible into local languages and suppressing science. Prong number two was the creation of beautiful, inspiring works of art meant to bring you back into the fold via an emotional attachment. Michelangelo’s art is the prime example. The mixed results demonstrate the futility of culturist suppression and the beauty and power of what we might nowadays dismiss as artistic propaganda.
Protestant movements of the North reacted to the Catholic efforts to secure their turf by smashing all art. Furthermore, they spread literacy and translated the bible into local languages. In translating the Bible into German, Martin Luther is said to have created the Modern German language. Gutenberg’s printing press was heavily used in this effort. And whereas the Pope jailed Galileo Galilei for his disagreeing with the Pope, the North eagerly printed his smuggled texts and used them to achieve a personal understanding of the lord through science. This demonstrates another culturist tendency: Cultures in opposition differentiate.
Without this
historic background one cannot understand the Puritan’s hatred of
Catholicism. They wanted to purify their
church of all remnants of Catholic artistry, ornamentation, ritual and
hierarchical doctrine. They wanted to
focus purely on a personal relationship with Jesus through private
reading. They were super Protestants
reacting to the still fresh schism with the Catholics. The culturist lesson of this paragraph is
that you literally cannot understand your own country’s particular culture
until you understand its deeper historical roots.
Colonialism was
the world’s biggest social science experiment.
What would happen if you go around the world and plant Catholic and
Protestant cultures? The experiment was
done and the results are very interesting.
Wherever Protestant England and
The importance of
culture to a wide range of indexes has been shown to be true over and
over. In countries with mixed
populations, Protestants, Chinese and Jew’s economic roles are disproportionate
to their numbers. Many poorer countries
will assert that the reason they are poor is that they were exploited by the
Protestant colonies. But recourse to
Protestant interference as an explanation only begs the question.
This section has shown some cultural absolutes. Economic success is a result of cultural norms. Clean government and low crime rates are other cultural manifestations. Cultural and individual values reflect deep, deep historical roots. Valuing such things is, however, totally culturally relative. Catholic cultures have tighter families and better art. Neither culture’s aesthetics can be shown to be objectively better or preferable. When cultures divide they differentiate. That is not to say that one heads in a bad direction and the other in a good direction. We can only show that differences occur with major concomitant consequences. Our preference for our culture’s ways only reflects the depth of cultural programming.
Cultures compete
Social Darwinism holds that cultural and individual competition will result in the extinction of the deficient and the preservation of the efficient individuals and races. [98] This is horrific vision. It is also wrong. Reality is worse. It is not necessarily the most efficient (or fittest) institutions that take over. Cultures willing to sacrifice much of their youth to incessant warfare have a good track record. Unfortunately, the horrific part of Social Darwinism cannot be faulted. As with animals, the extinction of cultures happens. We cannot objectively say which cultures are better, but extinction being a bad thing we should investigate its causes in an effort to avoid it.
Sometimes the
mechanism by which one culture supplants another is demographics. We saw the importance of demographics in the
case of the Mexican loss of
Tibetans no longer
have the numbers for a successful insurrection.
Even if the Tibetans, got back “their land” they would be a minority in
it. Were they to establish a democracy,
they would lose every election. Not
speaking the language of the majority of the population, their choices are
limited to struggling in ghettoes or adapting to the majority Chinese
culture. Their culture is greatly
endangered and has, to a real extent, gone extinct. The complex vibrant dynamics of their
original culture cannot be preserved in disparate small settlements in
Cultural continuity requires cultural transmission. Within a few generations all memory of cultural traditions can be extinguished. What we know of the indigenous religions comes as a result of a few chroniclers and anthropologist. No one would know how to recreate these cultures if they wanted to. Latin American Catholics consider Catholicism to be their nation’s historic religion. Apart from some idiosyncrasies buried in the local practice of Catholic rites, the indigenous religions are extinct. Cultural extermination via ruthless reprogramming can be very effective.
The popularity of a culture greatly affects its viability. The Catholic conquest of the region was facilitated with discontent on the part of locals. Conquistadors successfully exploited this discontent by pitting kingdom against kingdom. Hernan Cortes exploited myths that painted him as a savior of the locals from this suffering. Cultural resilience is affected by the level of satisfaction it engenders in the population.
Not all cultures galvanize resources to the same level. The Greeks were fighting for a culture that would allow them to freely follow their individual consciences. Persians were a theocracy and would not respect individual conscience in decision making. The Greeks, unlike many modern Westerners, appreciated how rare a cultural flower their culture’s esteem of individual conscience was. Nowhere in their world was there anything other than theocratic monarchies. Their losing to the Persians would mean the death of the most precious thing in existence: mental freedom. This realization resulted in loyalty that would not allow defeat.
Greek culture also gave them an advantage in battle. Our propensity for local rational democratic power sharing was reflected in our style of fighting. Whereas the Persians had to wait for orders from above, the Greeks depended on autonomous fighting units. When isolated they collectively decided upon their plan of action. Self-governance created a more flexible and effective army. Thus democracy was not only able to inspire martial sentiments, it was crucial to our securing our land. Cultures inspire different behaviors in peacetime use of human capital. Cultures also affect cultural security by the wartime behaviors they evoke.
These differential
effects can be seen in American history.
The settlement of our country was done under the banner of ‘Manifest
Destiny.’ Americans filled the continent
because they felt an ideological imperative to extend the land mass in which
freedom operated.
Survival of the fittest includes ethics in that the doctrine being promulgated must be able to galvanize enthusiasm. But ethics and popularity have a tenuous relationship. Early Christianity’s spread was greatly facilitated by its glorification of defensive martyrdom. Islam engenders offensive martyrdom. This is conducive to outright conquest and the destabilization of enemies. Catholicism’s tenets result in high birthrates and high levels of respect for enshrined authority. Cultures exist in the heads of people. One way to make your culture spread is to have enough people to occupy a large area. Asian cultures engender the type of diligence that leads to economic viability. Western countries appeal to individual disregard for cultural considerations in a way that can lead to selfish decadence. Fittest cannot be taken to imply an ethical superiority.
Culturist realpolitik lessons
Whatever the mental content, cultural existence absolutely requires heads and land. Cultures only exist in heads. If no one remembers your culture, it will cease to exist. Heads nearly always require land. No food, no heads, no memories, no culture. Jews have been unique in that their cultural propensity for literacy (heads) has allowed them to become ingrained in other people’s land. Still, even their culture is not supernatural. Even though it spent epochs without its own land, it still required land. Without this level of physical grounding your culture will be relegated to scholar’s history books.
Culturism thus requires thinking in realpolitik terms. Cultures are not metaphysical entities built upon bedrock of universal truths. They live in geographic space in the minds of living humans. If other cultures occupy your land, your values occupy that much less space. They have moved closer to disappearance. Were there enough land for all the cultures of the world that wanted to live to exist, they would all be here. There is a scarcity of that which sustains the heads. That means that there is competition between cultures.
Beyond land, cultural survival requires that those heads be filled with the stuff of cultures. If you do not teach your cultural values with pride they will not inform the world view of the people living on your land. If all Islamic cultures stopped teaching the Koran and started delivering a purely secular curriculum Islam would cease to exist in three generations. Even if formerly Islamic continued to hold vast and heavily populated territories, their culture would cease to exist. Heads stuffed with secular cultural proclivities, do nothing for Islam. Once your ideas are not in the heads of a people sustained by geography, they do not exist. Cultures require land, but ultimately exist in heads of humans.
The lesson to be learned is that if we do not value our culture’s distinctions and thus concern ourselves with heads; if we do not propagate its special features that lead to success and thus maintain land; our culture will cease to exist too. It is not the case, as those who advocate a laissez faire attitude towards culture, that secular humanism and democracy are the universal default that those uninstructed tend towards. Many competing models have and continue to exist. Historians try to appreciate what the Hittite and Tibetan cultures were like, but they cannot make them come alive again. Being overly free with heads and land shows a failure to appreciate that American Exceptionalism has its limits. Cultures disappear.
Mistakenly believing our civilization is universal is largely due to our failure to guard the land and heads that sustain it. In an era of blind post-Cold War triumphalism we feel immortal and as though our conquering of the world is a done deal. Our willingness to believe this probably reflects the insulation from war and cultural protection our geographic isolation gave us before modern transportation. Such arrogance reflects an appreciation for our culture, but a failure to appreciate that others exist. The history of the world shows that cultures are proud of their heritage, seek to expand and do not give up easily. There is no universal agreement that Western ways are the best and the future that every culture strives towards.
The Chinese would
love to reassert their perceived rightful place as the ruler of the world. Though they are aggressively expanding their
military capacity, they could not overcome us militarily. Theirs would be a soft aggression. Gaining control of us economically is well
under way. From this position they will
increasingly be able to have influence in our political system. Culture follows power. Chinese military aggression will likely only
involve
Islam’s threat to our way of life is much less subtle and much more immediate. Their cultural precepts decree that they will not stop at our acknowledgement of their superiority. They need us to submit or die. They have already shown that their tactic is to destabilize cultures via terror attacks. They also seek to shut down freedom of speech by killing and intimidating politicians and writers that disagree with them. Western media and the Pope have been put on notice that their speech must conform to Islamic guidelines or result in international crisis. Fending off such attacks has already caused a compromise of rights and civil liberties in Western countries. Success breeds confidence. Those who expect this aggression to diminish are naïve.
Other cultures
already know that control of land and heads are weapons of competition. The Catholic churches’ support for open
borders and high birth rates in the United States is an overt attempt to gain
more land and heads.
Imperialism and culturism
Cultures that are
successful have unity, pride and a sense of mission and confidence that borders
on arrogance. Chinese civilization is a
fantastic example of this truism, Islamic civilization is another. Countries that have internal divisions fall
apart during war time.
British imperialism provides an example that a righteous sense of mission and entitlement are conducive to power. At the top of their game, the British felt a sense of nobles oblige, that is an obligation to share their values with the less developed. They practiced what has been called “Gentlemanly Capitalism.” The gentlemen that led this were long trained in social and religious values to a code of honor which placed duty before self-advancement. They felt, much as we saw Americans traditionally have, that altruistic communal virtues were a prerequisite for the self-governance they called liberty. Their mission was based on, not devoid of, values.
The Colonial
Secretary declared in 1833 that
British economic
self-interest and the general good were seen to be interchangeable
categories. If all of
We now snicker at
such an idea. Certainly, the British
attempts to export their way of life was racism at worst or a reflection of
ignorance concerning the dignity of indigenous ways at best. Feelings of cultural pride are said to be
born of a lack of relativism. The
British arrogance was unjustified and led to harm, beyond reparation, to the
local ways. Unfortunately, the
self-deprecating stance of moderns undercuts our willingness to study our
past. This failure is likely both the
cause and effect of
Though it is hard to validate that our culture’s enshrining of rational and efficient administration combined with a zeal for progress results in a more satisfactory life, the Western world should still be able to take some real pride in its accomplishments. Planes, television, radio, light bulbs, film, cars, mass transit and the modern economic system are Western creations. If not the quality, we have facilitated a radical explosion in the quantity of life. However much the countries that were colonized by the West resented our presence, they are not refusing those cultural intrusions.
Without us, most of the world would be living in mud huts without electricity waiting for the witch doctor to tell us what the thrown bones dictate. Those in more rationally organized civilizations would still largely be huddled defenselessly in huts; captive to the whims of weather and unable to leave the village into which they were born. The life expectancy would still be thirty to forty years long and childbirth would be an extremely dangerous undertaking. In a real very real sense, the Western world’s arrogance led to the creation and diffusion of all that is modern.
I am boasting. But it isn’t idle. These achievements lend support to the notion that our culture deserves culturist protection and perpetuation. Our invention of modern industriousness, originally applied to every problem on this earth, is not the default of human consciousness. Tribal reversion into unscientific brutality is rife in the world. Western consciousness is still special and should be cherished as an achievement. Much of the world still lives in a pathetic trap of superstitious darkness, informed by no hope or system of getting hope. The Western enlightenment vision coupled with a belief in action and individual initiative still provides the only hope in an otherwise dark world.
We also extended
our largely Christian value system. In
Ours is still a fantastic vision. The Athenians fought against the Persians for just such a conception of an autonomous individual. Ours is a strong and noble history that has benefited a wider scope of the world than any before it. Some may say that our noble sentiments of “the white man’s burden” were just window dressing for avarice. But we alone among imperialists have felt a need for window dressing. Other cultures just subjected cultures they were able to subdue to rape, slavery and destruction. They were proud of the plunder they achieved. To the extent that one thinks that we should be ashamed of our plunder, they are using Western values. To the extent that we are ashamed of our imperialism, the advance of human rights and Western countries’ strength are undermined.
Civilizations and barbarians
When the Western world finally crashed the Chinese party they were in the low part of their dynastic cycle. They, nonetheless, still considered us barbarians. The opium wars happened because we had to get them to buy something from us. Outside of opium addicts, they declared that they didn’t need anything from us barbarians. They would sell to us, but they refused to import our gimmicky products. Even then the trade was unbalanced in their favor and we were bleeding silver. Even, and perhaps especially, in the worst of times the Chinese are culturist to the max!
What did they mean
by the term ‘barbarian’ that they applied to us? Theirs was the common meaning that identifies
a barbarian as a person who lives outside of a known civilization. What did that imply? It implied that we did not have enough of a
shared history to know who we were. We
had no institutions that told us to respect manners and appreciate
institutions. We were a band of
conquering folks that would never be able to stabilize our gains without
them. The Mongols, they had rightfully
predicted, would have to adopt the Chinese civilization’s ways if they hoped to
rule an area as large as
Who did the
Mongols learn about civilization administration from? Who taught them about accounting? Where did they learn the ways of ritual that
could get the leaders followed? What
history could they identify themselves with that would make them permanent
instead of an occupying force? The
Chinese. Lacking a culture that could
sustain a civilization of their own, staying in
Translating the Chinese term for barbarian was not hard for us. We had, despite our disdain for history, emerged from a fairly old and coherent civilization ourselves. The Greeks also called all peoples outside of their realm barbarians. Those without cultural memory do not imagine things outside of their lifespan. They neither build upon a rich tradition nor seek to add to it. There is nothing outside of themselves they are trying to enhance. The Chinese saw us as just another loose band of voracious bandits trying to fill the void with fleeting moments of gorging. We did not seem to have the refinements of those wishing to make contributions to the ages.
Even if we were the new conquerors on the block, it was clear to them who would end up on top. Not seeing our cultural forest through our individualistic trees, the Chinese saw no culture or common cause we would be able to impose. We would disintegrate like the temporarily united group of rogue barbarians we were. They assumed they would inevitably sink to the level of a neophyte slapped-together, basically barbarian culture would sink. Not having any culture to bond us, we would have to either accept theirs or return to being barbarians. And their long view of history showed that, whether we adopted their ideas or fled, they would once again rise to the height that a culture of their depth, belongs.
Unfortunately for them, we are not barbarians. Our forefather the Greeks were well aware that theirs was a civic body welded together by deep collective traditions they could build upon. Greeks saw themselves as having cultural characteristics that collectively distinguished them from the Persians. We were not going to disintegrate easily. Having such a history implies a concern for the honor or disgrace one’s actions shed on that past. If you have nothing in common we cannot feel any common cause with our fellow invaders. We came in the name of a well structured Christian civilization. A lack of caring for the collective fate of a body politic by its members means your group will disintegrate like the barbarians you are. We did not.
Beyond a cultural heritage that gives you connection, not being barbarian requires that your sense of unity and cultural history provides you with institutions that coordinate your action. Roman law provided us with bureaucratic habits that could maintain enterprises over a long distance. We knew about record keeping and infrastructure maintenance and reporting back to the home office. We had codes of trust that allowed informal agreements to stick. From the authoritarian perspective of the Chinese, our lack of centralized control must have looked like anarchy. But the enterprises like the British East Indian Trading Company were well integrated into their homeland bureaucracies and cultural contexts.
Chinese cultural history also told them that, lacking a vision beyond just sacking and pillaging, barbarians can have no lasting impact on a culture. We were, however, there with what we considered to be a fully exportable world view. Europeans had happened to stumble upon scientific concepts and modes of thought that all manners of humans could use to emancipate themselves from ignorance, superstition and material want. But there was no reason that others could not apply them. It had worked at home and we were sure it could work abroad. Furthermore, we had ancient religious truths and cultural treasures to confer. We had lessons based on cohesive world views and artifacts aplenty to export.
Western culture’s confidence during our time of time of greatest expansion was such that we called the creation of our new viewpoint ‘the Enlightenment’. Not an enlightenment, the enlightenment. Not the ‘modern thought construct’, the Enlightenment. This modern viewpoint was correctly seen to be a creation that got its favorable estimation in contradistinction to the Dark Ages. Superstition, oppression and wars over invisible things (religious beliefs) were being replaced by the rational application of man’s mind to the problems of this earth. This is still how much of the world defines progress. Our faith in progress and rational principles turned out to be gifts that are still improving the world.
The Enlightenment program does have, it turns out, some self-destructive bits of code embedded in it. First of all the Enlightenment based much of its work on science. Science sees itself as dealing with universal principles. Thus, the Western ideals of progress and modernism it fought for were not, after a point, seen to be special. This meant that our triumph would be our defeat. Once everyone had adopted science and progress we would cease to have a distinguishing characteristic. One does not need to fight to prove physics equations or show the benefits of a spreadsheet once it has been widely adopted. Success would undermine the sense of distinction so necessary to cultural flourishing.
Secondly, the Enlightenments cult of progress saw no value in the past. So the Western traditions were only acknowledged to be derided. Thus it unintentionally cut off the branch from which it bloomed. We do not attribute our successes to our unique past. We attribute them to science and the natural tendency to want to progress. We no longer have a sense of needing to judge ourselves worthy of our Roman and Greek progenitors. We have, therefore disintegrated into individualism for individualisms sake. Our individualism no longer includes a sense of vindicating the Western vision of the worth of the individual thinker. We are behaving like individual plunderers with no connection to a rich past. In a word, barbarians.
And lastly, not realizing it is a temporal creation, we assume that our truths are universal truths; we then use these universal truths to judge our forefathers. As a result, when the Western heirs of the Enlightenment see that we had slavery, we do not simultaneously remember that it was universal trait of agricultural civilizations and cannot be used to condemn our forefathers. Instead of taking pride in the fact that our Enlightenment was the key to ending slavery around the world, we condemn ourselves for having not having adhered to the Enlightenment’s universal standard of right and wrong before it we invented it. This increases our disdain for what little of our past we still care to remember.
To the extent that
we do not remember our past, the Chinese were right. We will disintegrate into barbarianism. We will not, as the Greeks did, see our
culture as unique. We will not cohere
and esteem institutions that extend beyond the self-indulgence of raiders. And we will no longer have a coherent world
view that can project itself into the future.
We fulfill our wants, as all pirates do.
But consumerism is not something that can unite a civilization. It is a universal. And consumerism does not teach any ennobling
or ethical codes. If we do not take
pride in our long and deep historical roots, we will disintegrate like all the
barbarian raiders that had tried to take
Historical consciousness
The Enlightenment has also had other corrosive influences on Nationalism. Currently many scholars consider nations to be modern inventions.[103] In some respects they are right. Nations in their current form were constructed by conscious efforts. But these efforts were built on historical foundations that predated, to differing degrees, the creation of these nations. Their failure to recognize the deep culturist roots results from the Enlightenment presupposition that all things can be categorized and understood rationally without any context. A failure to recognize the cultural roots plagues the arguments in this arena. And, beyond these scholastic issues, their failure to put nation and nation building in a culturist perspective undermines Western civilization.
Those who say that nations are merely modern inventions, again, have a point. Political unity does not require cultural homogeneity.[104] Segregated diversity, not cultural homogeneity, was the norm agricultural societies. Ethnic enclaves would control their own economic sector: one ethnic group would do wheat and another do public works. In such societies military service was the prerogative of those in the ruling culture. The militarized elites did not care what you spoke or did as long as you could communicate with the tax collector. Agricultural monarchies do not require cultural homogeneity to stay unified. Force works. All such nations had priests and gods, but varied in the extent to which they expected all sectors to pay tribute to them.
Industrial democracies cannot run on this basis. Modern economies require that business orders written in one part of the country are understood in another. Modern economies are most efficient when each citizen has total social mobility. This cannot happen when peoples are separated into linguistic islands. Furthermore, it is destabilizing for a democracy to try to house two distinct cultures. The two cultures will try to out vote and thereby dominate each other. This can lead to hostility and instability. If instead of having two large groups your country contains a great multiplicity of cultures the threat of large scale divisiveness is reduced. But containing many differing ethnic enclaves remains, again, incompatible with an integrated industrial economy that has social mobility.
Some scholars
stress that modern national cultures were born from conscious attempts to
address just such difficulties. Kings
did not care what languages the peasants spoke, but modern nations require
unity. Often the need for modern nations
to have cultural unity resulted in wars.
Before these wars, however, statesman, politicians and poets laid the groundwork to create the national consciousness that “the people” fought over. Sometimes these efforts took the form of romantic exhortations depicting the beauty of the unifying cultural sentiments.[105] Sometimes it took the form of an advocacy for national agreement on the rational requirements of a good polity.[106] For their part, historians contributed to national unity by writing odes to king, tying together local myths or whatever served the national purposes.[107] Artists constructed monuments to as solid testaments to these new national entities.[108] And everywhere, language standardization was as much a part of this process as deciding where borders should be.[109] Nations have been, to a large extent, the result of conscious design.
The conscious
effort being involved leads many scholars to conclude that all national
cultures are artificial. As such they
are false and to be debunked. But such
blanket statements obscure subtleties.
One example is the distinction between nations that took a lot of
contrivance and those that did not. As
Failure to make
such distinctions leads to the failure to recognize that to be viable national
cultures have to have elements of truth.
British and American historians will teach different versions of “The
American Revolution.” But neither will
report it as a Muslim conspiracy. The
sources of national cultural unity are not arbitrary. Shakespeare may have been popularized because
his Julius Caesar facilitated teaching the lower echelon about
Furthermore, your nation being a conscious choice does not constitute a reason for degrading it. Consciously choosing is a Western virtue. Whereas it might be a shock to traditional cultures to find out that their culture was made up, we are not a traditional culture. To the extent that our culture is made up we can say that it is traditional to be consciously in control of your culture. Our culture’s being a contrivance makes culturism a Western tradition. Western civilization has been able to embrace and adapt to change because of our protean and conscious nature. Knowing about this traditional ability should serve us well as we create the coordinating myths of tomorrow. To the extent that our culture is consciously created, we should be proud of it.
A poor understanding of science and bad science worship underwrites much of the academic efforts at debunking. Such efforts assume that science occupies a neutral territory that it does not occupy. Academic’s desire to be seen as objective, ironically, reflects their own culture’s parochial worship of the cult of science. To be scientific is to be a part of the Western heritage. All social scientist reflect the interests of their times. To try to occupy a theoretically neutral space that no one has ever occupied is unscientific. It is scientific to recognize that being part of your culture is part of the natural order. Unlike those who say that the science of creating our culture makes it false should recognize that scientists would never say technology is unscientific because it is applied.
Knowing that some
cultures are contrived does not lead to relativism. Just because cultures change greatly over
time does not mean that they are less substantial. Ultimately all moral judgments are
cultural. Whereas we would find the
ending of slavery noble; others currently headhunt and enjoy slaves. There are no universal standards or cultures;
there are only created standards and cultures.
Rather than berating ourselves for failing to live up to supposedly
universal standards, we should study how we created the evolution of
understanding of those standards in historical time. We can then be proud of a system that
developed and was able to implement those values. Such an approach is culturally honest and
accurate.
History can be a destroyer of faith. Again, it is hard to realize that your creation myths are only one of many. National cultures having been constructed as much as found disillusions many. But they were created as a process of birthing an order more fluid than the agricultural ones that preceded them. These efforts were not evil. People construct meaning. That is not artificial. We are a culture that celebrates creation and the gains made through critical study. Gains garnered through study of the past are a source of honor. Western countries are marvelous things. Finding out that they are not conscious creations makes some cynical. Celebrating them on this basis is a more logic reaction. History teaches us that historians have had a real and important role in creating, guiding and perpetuating society.
Hermetically sealed
The Western world has been “mallicized.” That horrible neologism is meant to indicate that we live in an intellectual shopping mall. Malls are ahistorical. They give no hint as to where they have come from. They are opaque. They engender no worries about the future. Everything in a mall is compatible with everything else. They ask no questions about the outside world. No challenges are foisted beyond whether or not things match. No real differences exist in a mall. Other than idiosyncratic tastes and complexions, aren’t all shoppers the same? There is nothing to strive for in a mall. Can a malls anchor the West as it faces struggle and challenges? Does the mallicized West provide a meaningful life? To the extent that malls disengage us from the outside world and the past, they endanger us.
The sad thing is that if we don’t have a sense of culturist dynamics, the torch will go to a culture that does. Muslims know that their culture is the best. God told them so. Their culture provides a satisfying ideology that is a source of fanatical enthusiasm. Asian cultures are invigorated by the prospect of their ascendancy. A feeling of cultural superiority with a historical basis and more than a hint of racism fuels their sense of mission. Both cultures largely measure their success in opposition to ours. As the Muslims attack us and the Asians fanatically outwork us, we seem less determined than ever to struggle. The reassuring characteristics of the mall have induced a sense of lethargy about our fate.
Sadly, self-deprecatory attitudes of opinion leaders have a negative effect on the individuals inside the society they inhabit. Self-loathing leads to apathy about one’s efforts. Many intellectuals and subcultures see themselves as militantly (and ignorantly) against Western Civilization at worst and mildly apathetic at best. Talking about Western greatness and the mission that implies have ceased to fire up more than ironic annoyance. Immigrants seem to be the only ones that still see this as the land of promise anymore. But they largely come here for economic opportunity, not a sense of cultural mission. Slacker clothes, boredom and apathy are our responses to the challenges our competitors mount. Achilles is sulking.
The Chinese may be shown to have right about us when they said we didn’t have enough of a heritage to make us anything but barbarians. It may be worse than they supposed. We may have degenerated from fiery looting barbarians to obese shopping barbarians. Our sense of glory, meaning and connection with our pride are not present. Our work ethic, meaning, traditions, connection with our neighbors, willingness to defend our borders, our language, celebrate our arts and feeling of responsibility for our government are greeted with the indifference of a consumer who is used to their being nothing good on television, but keeps watching.
James Joyce’s character said that “History may be a nightmare from which we are trying to awaken.” The Greeks fought, died and struggled for mental freedom. The terrors and mental tyranny they fought against were real. And they did not fight for something as shallow as the consumerism of a mall. The Greeks realized that sustaining freedom requires dutifully upholding responsibilities. They also realized that these duties are only fully undertaken when one has a sense of community with their fellow citizens. We have to find a source of commonality deeper than consumption of the newest trends. Freedom will not be preserved by vainly trying to escape the nightmare of history.
Dr. Livingstone I presume
As Henry Stanley, the famous British explorer of uncharted areas of
The shock to British imperialism was that peoples did not readily take to the British system. They had underestimated the power of culturism in rousing men to rebellion. The locals did not want the British culture more than they hated being ruled by foreigners. They used the British rhetoric about self-determination against the British. If all were to be free and have rights of autonomy, why not us? If all are rational, why not treat us as such? The locals chased the British out. They were repeatedly drawn back to organize themselves based on their traditional cultural values and groupings. Rationality does not constitute a default to which all things naturally move.
Tribalism undermines the impartial code of fair play upon which modern Western meritocracies are predicated. Absence a tradition of meritocracy, people cannot get access to the education required for the utilization of a population’s talent. Other cultures get their meaning from a different source than rational applications of their talents based on personal calculated gain. Having many wives, enslaving your enemies and having kings is every bit as normal and satisfying as the world the British were trying to build. Not every culture is satisfied by dry pursuits and clothed women.
In retrospect, the British naiveté in believing that, all men being rational and impartial, tribes could just band together in arbitrarily chosen boundaries on the basis of mutual gain is amazing. They thought this would work because, to them, the infrastructure and ideals that were to weld various tribes into one seemed to be self-evidently preferable. Just as nationalism beat out imperialism, culturist tribalism undermined the new nations that followed decolonization. British naiveté is outdone by moderns who, with the benefit of this hindsight, still think that all cultures of the world will eventually unite under the banner of Western values.
Developing nations are largely figments of the imagination. They are only nominally nations (effective government, taxation and border enforcement are lacking). It is also a culturist error to see them as developing. They are living their lives on their terms. To judge them by how far along the Western path to modernism is to fail to see that our values are not everyone’s. Of course the phrase represents a truth at some level. But it would not be less accurate to see us as a failing tribal culture. We have forgotten the rites of our ancestors. Cultures are criteria by which to judge nations which are every bit as legitimate as development.
Historians should
know that cultures predate and outlast nations.
The
We judge the places where European imperialism happened as wretched and feel guilty. We assume that our sense of rationality is universal and that our consumerist goals are natural. This shallow specter of multiculturalism does not really acknowledge diversity. And to the extent that we conceive of other’s lot in life as living hells, we feel a mix of impotence and guilt. Our efforts to help were fruitless and possibly just window dressing for avarice. To the extent that these nations are not like us, we blame ourselves. This entire assessment is predicated on an ignorant Western myopia.
Islamic countries are not pining to be the West. They have a different value system. They are quite sure, apart from a skill for acquiring money, that we are arrogant, ignorant and shallow. Asian culture is not in a huge hurry to emulate the West’s barbarian sense of self. And they certainly are better at making money. People in other lives live by different codes. Our guilt about not having been good school masters shows that we are ignorant of the fact that historically superpower guilt has centered on a failure to sew fear into the minds of those they vanquished. Our value system does not constitute a universal code by which all can be judged.
Our naiveté about
the real world means that we do not realize that we are not unique in that we
have had some wars of conquest for pecuniary interests. We are unique for having had so much power
and not having wielded it for absolute despotism. We are unique for having felt the need to add
window dressing to our naked conquests.
Atrocities were committed in
Ample precedence exists for our ignorant and our arrogance. All great civilizations have assumed that they were superior. Knowing that yours is an ancient and powerful culture is empowering. Belief in your greatness may be a prerequisite for success on the world stage. The Catholics would not have converted South America, Rome would not have controlled Europe, China would not have absorbed Tibet, Islam would not have transformed the Middle East and America would not have manifest its destiny without fulfilling cultures and a bit of confidence. We are complacent and guilty because we assume we are the cultural default to which all aspire. Measuring other cultures by our standards has convinced us that we have failed them. In the following chapter we are going to see what the world we inflicted our imperialist vision on looked like. If we put Western civilization in historic and world wide perspective we end up prouder, humbler, healthier and safer.
CHAPTER FOUR – CULTURISM IN ANTHROPOLOGY
The noble
savage
In learning about
culturism in
Hating
superstition and living in
The Swiss-French philosopher and author Jean Jacques
Rousseau was the bad boy of the
Enlightenment. He had less
reverence for our advanced world than he did for the ‘noble savage.’ One of
his famous quotes, “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” implies that we in the modern civilized
world are corrupt. Man in his natural
state was much like Adam and Eve were in the Garden. They were free and innocent. Despite
a lack of science and civilization, the
so-called primitives were said to live in a better world. Rousseau’s supporters held that the Western
world was a mistake.
Asked about the Native Americans, the average American will confirm Rousseau’s beliefs. Common
opinion holds that Native Americans were peaceful and ecologically-minded. They would venture to guess that war, hatred
and crimes against humanity were not vices from which natives suffered. Certainly, they would assume, such vices are just the results of
civilizations like ours; Hitler, Mao and Stalin all reflect uniquely Western ideals and
sentiments. The average person intuitively accepts the common sentiment that we have a
worse culture than that of the Native Americans we replaced. Our basically replacing their culture was not
progress, but a crime. Many would suggest generalizing that evaluation
to the impact on
We are no longer entirely sure about the
Enlightenment’s faith that in our way of life is better than that of prehistoric man. The suspicion that the simple and natural
life of people with no nuclear bombs or freeways was better causes us to
question modernity’s value. This view accounts for much of our negative assessment of the impact of
imperialism. In the words of the famous ‘60s song, “We paved paradise and put in a
parking lot.” Having invented both
democracy and nearly every technological invention in existence, we might, instead,
look around the world with great pride.
If Rousseau is right, however, our influence should serve as a
deep reservoir of collective guilt.
Margaret Mead
and culturism
Rousseau’s attack on pretensions is appealing
to Americans. But while focused on the
backwards nature of
Young Margaret Mead did not decide to go to
This insidious
movement was huge in the
Mead’s dispelling
of the stupid concept of racism was a wonderful
triumph. However, she went way
overboard in selling the gentleness of the Samoans. Her work was highly inaccurate. Worse
yet, from a culturist perspective,
the implication of her inaccurate work had some unintended consequences. The
belief in the pacific and environmental nature of these indigenous people gave
rise to cultural relativism. Cultural
relativism is the belief that you cannot judge one culture by the standards of
another. In its pure form this is a fair
assessment. But Mead’s emphasis on the
Samoan’s gentle ways has resulted in our prohibition against judgment having a
caveat; we are committed to not judging any cultures, except our own.
Mead portrayed the Samoans as a sexually
liberated, jealousy-free peaceful people.
If natives could be this peaceful, our not being so was not
natural. All imperfections imply
culpability. Her pollyannaish portrayal
of them convinced us that all of our social pathologies and stressors
reflect unique cultural defects. We went from a positive American Exceptionalism
to a negative American Exceptionalism.
We now hold that our views are not only not superior; but fail miserably
in comparison to the blemish free lifestyle of the Samoans . By this reckoning it is improper to advance
and affirm our own values in our cultural sphere of influence. Multiculturalism is an instantiation of this
view.
A culturist reading of the anthropological
record can allow us to find a healthy balance between extremes. Anthropology has shown us just how great
diversity is. Appreciating diversity
means recognizing how special our culture is.
And, from a Western point of view, our culture is fantastically unique and
valuable. But our perspective is ours
alone. Appreciating diversity means
allowing other cultures to develop and judge themselves, if they wish, from
their own unique perspective. An
accurate reading of the modern anthropological record keeps us from radical and
imperialist notions. Anthropology’s
findings make the boundaries of the Western world, and Western culturism
clear.
First encounter
Cabeza de Vaca was
the first European explorer of the
De Vaca was enslaved. He was the first to document the fact that not only did Native Americans have slaves, but they were cruel about it. “Not content with frequently buffeting them, striking them with sticks, and pullout out their beards for amusement, they killed three of the six for only going from one house to another.”[113] Slaves were kept without clothes and worked so hard that their fingers bled upon being touched. One was killed on account of a dream one of their captures had had. Cabeza de Vaca had to stay with them for over six months. If he were suspected of trying to escape he would have been killed immediately.
In another tribe De Vaca learned that Native
Americans were not all feminists. “The
men bear no burden. Anything of weight
is borne by women and old men, the people least esteemed. The women got
only six hours rest out of twenty-four, spending the wee hours heating the
ovens to bake roots. They begin digging
at day break and hauling wood and water to their houses, etc.”[114] They rarely let daughters live. They tossed female infants to the dogs. This was done because marrying them broke the
incest taboo and sending them to another tribe would mean the birth of their
enemies and slavery. To get a wife you
had to buy them from your enemies. The
price of a wife was a good bow and two arrows.
Such information might be shocking to modern
Americans, but it would not seem strange to an anthropologist. Anthropologists have long been aware that
Native Americans and other indigenous peoples were not angels by Western standards. Native Americans had slaves from the Pacific Indians
to the
One group of Native Americans found Cabeza de Vaca’s lost group on the verge of
starvation. They left with
promises to return with food. By the
time they had returned some of Cabeza de Vaca’s crew had died. Upon
seeing this they “lamented for half an hour so loudly they could have
been heard a long way off.”[115] Thanksgiving
stands as a reminder to their importance in the creation of
Native Americans, like all indigenous peoples
everywhere, were flesh and blood humans with all the foibles that implies. And being human implies a great more
diversity than we are accustomed to believe in.
To view Native Americans or Western civilization as innocent embodiments
of virtue blinds us to the real nature of human beings and history.
Western males and
war
Among modern feminists there is a belief that all war is due to the
incursion of patriarchy on the normally peaceful female-led population starting in the year 4200 B.C. These warring invaders were Aryan males.[116] This telling
of history chalks up all war and evil to these proto-men of Western
civilization. Before the so called Western ‘patriarchy,’ the story goes, humans were peaceful
and ecologically-minded. This
reading of history is a basic tenet of the new-age practitioners of Wiccan
Goddess worshippers. Denunciation of
Western patriarchy is axiomatic in many women’s studies departments.[117] Thus
this variant of Mead’s vision permeates large clusters of the future leaders of
Because of such intellectual trends it
seems counterintuitive for us to learn that the century that featured Hitler,
Stalin and Mao was the most peaceful in the history of the world! In anthropological parlance there are four
basic types of social organization: the
band, the tribe, the chiefdom and the state.
Whereas states, such as ours, have full blown “wars,” bands and tribes
raid each other. These raids usually
result in the killing of a person or two.
Because only a few people die in such raids, many anthropologists have
regarded them as small potatoes. But
when you consider the percentage of the population that die in such raids, they
are colossal.
The commonly agreed upon statistic
indicates that approximately 25 percent of people died violent deaths prior to
the emergence of chiefdoms and states.[118] Approximately 1.5 percent of males in the
Eighty-six percent of Native American tribes
were raiding or resisting raids more than once a year.[120] War often results from scarcity caused by
overpopulation. Archeologists have found
that in times of scarcity the number of arrow heads embedded in skeletons,
broken arms from deflecting blows and crushed skulls goes up. Evidence of violent death found skeletons in
The world order launched by Western
civilization is the most peaceful ever.
Relatively few Westerners know anyone who has been to war. Furthermore, we have created an ethic that is
against war. Many cultures, including
those of our Viking predecessors, relished war.
Peace is a modern creation.
Perhaps some readers will think this is hyperbole, but it is clearly
supported by archeological and anthropological statistics. Those who think things are bad now
underestimate the amount of diversity in the world. Rather than feel guilt for the wars we have
had, we should recapture our feeling of pride in having turned against the
enjoyment of blood, gore and war.
Mesoamerican
culture
When Western culturists use Western individuals
and cultures as sources of pride bias is involved. But it is rational bias. Our civilization is safeguarded when we see
it as special; and more likely to be seen as special when bolstered by an
appreciation of those who created it. It
would be silly for Westerners to expect that the celebration of the founders
and achievements of the Chinese and Muslims would make us prouder of and more
invested in our culture. No
civilization, past or present, outside of the West has spent much time extolling
other’s virtues. This common wisdom is
also recommended by the fact that there is often wide divergence between the
values of the civilizations in question.
This divergence can be used as a source of pride for us.
Diego de Landa’s Account
of the Things of Yucatan is an amazing little book. Diego de Landa himself evokes a strange
mixture of gratitude and reprehension.
On the one hand he collected and arranged data about the history and customs
of the Mayan peoples he encountered. His documentation provides our richest
source of information on the Mayans. On the other hand he destroyed articles, codices and monuments that were
obstacles to the implantation of Catholic doctrine.[122] In his
own mind he saw only one right culture replacing a wrong one. He only collected information on the Mayans
in order to better undermine them.
Arriving in 1549 De Landa spent nearly thirty
years in the Yucatan, a peninsula in the southeast of what is today
Mexico. After learning the Mayan language, he began to travel throughout the
peninsula in order to convert the inhabitants.
His zeal led to quick promotions. His cruelty and his usurpation of powers of the bishop and the inquisition, however, got him a trial date back in
The locals did
have government, literature and a working economy. Every civilization has things to be proud of. Mayans also had slaves. When giving confession to the
Their religious practices were a little more extreme than
run-of-the-mill slavery.
“The men made sacrifices of their
own blood, sometimes cutting into the edges of their ears at intervals all
around, and they left them like this as a sign.
Sometimes they pierced their cheeks or lower lips, made incisions in
other parts of the body, or would pierce their tongues from side to side and
run straws through the hole.” A person
dedicated to the proposition that all cultures have equal worth could still
hold their own. Modern multiculturalists
could still defend them. Many Western youth now get pierced and
barbwire shaped ‘tribal’ tattoos
just to show their sympathy with the indigenous.
Of course, they were more hardcore than most of
those who have endured the modern tattooing process. De Landa wrote that, “Sometimes they
carried out a foul and laborious sacrifice.
Those who were performing it assembled in the temple and, standing in a
row, each made a hole through his member from side to side; they then passed
through the greatest quantity of cord they could, and so all were threaded
through.” We do not stigmatize much
anymore. Sadomasochism is accepted as
healthy. So even after finding out that
they used chords to get blood from their private parts for an idol, multiculturalists could still defend
them.
But human
sacrifice is not an action that can be reconciled with modern humanism. As a part of their regular sacrifices De Landa wrote, “. . . they took hold of him [the one to
be sacrificed] and bound him, as they all danced and watched him.” “Then the unholy priest came and wounded the
victim, whether man or woman, in the private parts. He drew blood, then came down and with it
smeared the face of the demon.” In the
end the executioner would tear out the living heart and the priest would use
the blood to anoint the faces of the idols.
This is gruesome stuff. We prize
freedom of religion. But culturists would prohibit human sacrifice
in the
It gets worse! “Sometimes they performed this sacrifice on the stone on the top step of the temple and then would set the body to roll down the staircase. At the bottom, the officials took the body and flayed it completely except the hands, and feet, then the naked priest wrapped himself in this skin and all the others danced with him. This was an occasion of great solemnity for them. These victims were commonly buried in the courtyard of the temple or, if not, were eaten, being distributed among the chiefs and those they were sufficient for. The hands, feet and heads were for the priests and officials.”
These practices were not only relegated to the
Mayans. The Aztecs were constantly
battling their enemies to get bodies for sacrifice. These were called Flower Wars.[125] One
reason Cortez defeated the Aztecs was that they sought to take their opponents
alive in order to to sacrifice them instead of killing them outright.[126] And these sacrifices involved no small
loss of life. At the dedication of the
main temple to Huitzilopochtli as many as 80,400 captives were sacrificed.[127] After being sacrificed by the priests the
happy captor could take the body home, eat it and hang the bones as a sign of
prestige.[128] It was
normal for certain priests to wear the skins of those sacrificed for twenty
days.[129] Diversity includes such behaviors.
If you are not to judge cultures you
have to accept human sacrifice and the wearing of the victim’s skins and the
eating of their bodies. Our worst serial
killers are thought mad when they do the same thing. You have to condemn some cultures or stop
judging serial killers. Such rites are
not acceptable by any modern standards.
We do not even impose such barbarous spectacles on convicted serial
killers or rapists. If you think that
our outlawing ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ is good, you have to denounce
widespread premodern practices. If you denounce sacrificing humans and wearing
of their skin, in
In the name of contrition for our crimes,
providing esteem to those descended from Mesoamericans and being respectful,
multiculturalists must distort history, archeology and anthropology. From a Western point of view, we can only see
the cultures of
The depth of
diversity
Captain James Cook had many first encounters with foreign cultures. He found people were generally quick to trade. But in conjunction with this tendency was a nearly universal desire to steal. Conceptualizing this ‘stealing’ as sharing would be the obvious justification offered by defenders of the natives’ innate morality. However the fact that they would only do so when they thought no one was looking runs counter to this interpretation. Cook’s bylaws prohibited retaliation. But sometimes, for example when his oars were stolen, this theft necessitated his involvement in deadly reactions.
He was puzzled by
one such encounter. A child was taken
aboard immediately following the killing, by muskets, of his comrades. He seemed quite cheery. The child did not want to return to shore,
for fear of being eaten by his enemies.
This, he thought, might just be an excuse to stay aboard. The child’s protests continued until he was
let ashore. On shore he was greeted
friendly by his comrades. Such
encounters defied his understanding. He could not fathom what this boy was
thinking. That may be why Cook was
eventually killed and eaten by the natives of
Diversity is not confined to behavior. We cannot appreciate what it means to enjoy
skinning someone for the gods as the Mesoamericans did. Our rational biases might cause us to miss the
radical depth of such diversity. Stop
and imagine the mind set of the person torturing children to propitiate the
Morning Star before killing them as the Pawnee did.[130] Try to imagine what it means to kill sleeping
children you come across to pass on your sorrow as some Northwestern Native
Americans did.[131] What is the mindset behind the joy of
headhunting? To think that these
behaviors just represent a misapplication of our detached application of calculating
reason is to underestimate the diversity implied by these actions.
It has been found that Western dichotomies of
mind versus body and natural versus supernatural and the corresponding division
between psychiatry, medicine, ethics and religion rarely hold in other
cultures.[132] The creation of these mental styles is done
early and is, interestingly, invisible to us.
Children sleeping alone in a room communicates messages of autonomy,
individuality and a private world to our children. Asking a child what they
want to eat means that individual taste, regardless of magical implications for
the tribe, is to be considered.[133] We finish our preverbal children’s sentences
for them. In doing so we assume the
existence of, and thus mold, a rational pattern of thought in the mind of the
child.[134]
Ilongot are headhunters. They are not assumed to have sense until
having taken a head. Names bestow
consciousness. The baby is not given a
name because, not having sense, a spirit could call it away if it had one.[135] If a child falls, the mother may spit on its
head and call it back so that it does not go away. When they can speak they are not thought to
have sense yet. So they are directed by
threats of death if they do not comply.
Names are still avoided as they mean the individual can be called
out. Rather than the Western inner
viewer, but the disturbing feelings born of the situation guide them.[136] A farmer may thus be made dizzy by the
vitality of her crops. [137] The world has many disturbing energies that
pull them. The build up of this
disturbing energy is released when they take a head.
De Landa thought
Mayan thinking patterns were very different.
He said their “. . . men do not wish to be guided by the light of reason
that he [God] has bestowed upon them, they begin to be tormented in this life
and to feel part of the Hell they deserve in the difficult rites they
continually perform to the demon god, with lengthy fasts, vigils and
abstinence, with unbelievable offerings and gifts of their possession and
property, with the constant shedding of their own blood, with severe pain and
wounds to their bodies and, what is worse and more serious, with the lives of
their fellows and brothers.”[138]
Anthropology has confirmed De Landa’s findings. If nothing else, anthropology asserts that
men unmodified by culture do not exist and could not exist.[139]
In many indigenous traditions youth have to go
on a quest in which they find spirit guides.
This usually involves fasting and often also involves ceremonial
mutilation and torture. Kwakiutl youth
had, like so many other Native Americans youth, had to spend time with their
spirit to be initiated into their society.
No one could use each other’s names during this period. In the woods the aspirant ate corpses. When they came back they went into frenzy,
bit mouths of flesh from those trying to restrain them and ate the bodies of
slaves who had been killed for them. [140] Only after being treated with menstrual blood
could they start to come back and be a real member of the cannibal order of the
Kwakiutl.
In many other cultures menstrual blood is
treated as a horror. Yanamamo believe it
to be a danger to the whole community.
If the woman does not refrain from normal activities subterranean dwarf
spirits will transform her into a rock and destroy the whole village.[141] Such attitudes are inculcated. An unconscious and emotionally disturbed
space underlies this sort of widespread ‘logic’ that we are not acculturated
to. Neither treating menstrual blood as magic, biological or dirty is
natural. Diversity is such that we would
likely vomit soon after starting to cut someone’s head off. Our lives, instead, revolve around acquiring
nice homes and pursuing careers. Such
attitudes are not the default of mankind.
We should not be surprised that when we neglect conscious socialization
bizarre and cruel behaviors appear. Diversity
is deep and shaped by cultural patterns.
Our truths are not self-evident
There is no objective basis upon which to say
that one culture is better than another.
Were our way of life inherently more satisfying than others, Western
culturism would not be needed. The
triumph of cultures dedicated to rights and efficiency would be just a matter
of waiting for natural practices to occur.
Anthropology shows that people are accustomed to endure long suffering
before changing directions. In fact,
inefficiency and pain being bad reflects Western assumptions. Female genital mutilation is not naturally resented
by those in the cultures that practice it.
Our existence offers others a choice that can result in a negative
evaluation. But such an evaluation is
not apparent. Indigenous practices offer
us choices. Maintaining our unique
values keeps the greatest worldwide variety of choices available.
The Yanomami live in
One Yanomami woman, Yarima, got married to a
visiting Anthropologist. He fell in love
with her and felt anxious knowing that she might be raped there (she was). He married her and took her home to
The previously mention Ilongot headhunters of
the South Pacific provide an interesting case.
Westerners did not find some of these people until well into the 20th
century. There are many of them. The Ilongot kept headhunting until the
1970s. The Ilongot life cycled
around sad feelings of the heart that could only be quelled by beheading someone. It is
hard for the Western mind to understand the joy and lighthearted feeling
that comes from cutting off another
person’s head. After cutting off human heads the Ilongot
seek out flowery reeds to wear that
signifying lightness and come home
singing.[146] Whether or not we get it, cutting
off heads remains a joyous spiritual event.
Since headhunting was outlawed many Ilongot
have become Christian. This new religion
was taken on to relieve the pain created by the inability to hunt heads. The major study of the Ilongot relates that
elders prefer not to be reminded of this loss as it pains them to know that the
young will never know the glory of headhunting.[147] Recently headhunting has had a resurgence.[148] It can be blamed on the centralized
government’s failures to modernize the local people. But it is also a triumph of the traditional. The local Dayaks recently took the heads of
400 migrants in one raid and said it really felt good.[149] We cannot assume that the Western world
provides a more appealing lifestyle.
Female genital mutilation happens in over 25
African countries, among some minorities in
“Female genital mutilation” is a Western
phrase. Without a doubt the indigenous
terms for the practice would not imply such condemnation. So called female genital mutilations are
often performed by grandmothers who had the operation themselves. To prohibit such an operation means that you
are condemning their offspring to being unacceptable women in their
communities. Some cultures love
headhunting. Others consider rape and
drug use to be proper. Some wear each
other’s skins after sacrifices. Many
other practices that are disgusting from a Western perspective are integral to
traditional pre-Western traditions. Such
practices are problematic for both culturists and multiculturalists.
Culturism holds that dominant cultures should
celebrate and protect themselves. From
the Western vantage point, headhunting and female genital mutilation are ugly
and reprehensible. Culturists realize,
however, that this is a Western bias.
This is a very difficult realization for Westerners. We love our values. These practices are repugnant to us. But they are only repugnant to us. There are different variants of
culturism. Yanomami have a right to
their culture. Western culturism is for
the Western nations. We are not the
world. We need not celebrate child
genital mutilation inside of our borders as this is not a Western practice. But if we wish others to respect our right to
define ourselves, we must be willing to respect other’s right to define
themselves.
Such indigenous practices present
different challenges for multiculturalists.
Culturists have a hard time tolerating such practices in other
countries. Multiculturalists must have
an even harder time celebrating them.
Those dedicated to celebrating diversity must praise human sacrifice, drug
use, head hunting, slavery and female genital mutilation. Usually this ideological difficulty is
surmounted by imagining diversity to be less diverse than it really is. Once you start to pick and choose which
practices you are and are not going to tolerate, you are no longer celebrating
diversity. You are judging by Western
standards. Many multiculturalists have
been driven to trying to end traditional practices and celebrating them within
the same organization.
Internationally, anthropologists will tell you,
promoting “human rights” means promoting the modern Western lifestyle. It is wrong and arrogant for us to tell the
Koreans that they cannot preference Korean values and persons in their
laws. When you outlaw headhunting, you
outlaw a way of life. To go to the
Middle East and insist that they adopt separation of church and state or
Cortes told a Mesoamerican king that he must “Give up
your sacrifices and cease to eat the flesh of your neighbors and practice
sodomy and the other evil things you do.”[153] He wanted to leave a cross, but his comrades
thought it too early to leave a cross in their possession. They
feared that the locals might do something degrading to it. They
probably would have. It was rude for him
to suggest leaving his symbol in their world.
It was a crime for Cortes to destroy the Aztecan culture. If a culture wants to follow another’s lead,
it should be purely voluntary. The
impetus for cultural changes can only come from within the cultures that live
them.
We are
special!!!
Some cultures have
practices that are morally repugnant to us.
Native Americans of the West coast
used to allow rival chiefs to land boats on their slaves to display their
wealth. This would kill the slaves. Having slaves, killing them and (traditionally) conspicuous consumption
are all things that leave a bad taste in our mouths. But within the framework of their logic, one
had to do such things or suffer ignominy. Telling them that they could no longer do
such things would strip their lives of meaning.
Basic truths are culturally bounded.
Western style ideals of justice are not
universal. For example when a member of
one Northwest Native American tribe died, they did not mourn. Instead they would go out and make someone
else mourn. Famed anthropologist Ruth
Benedict wrote about this taking place when a female of a tribe died. No one knew how she died. Having left and not come back, she could have
still been alive. That was not
important. They were sad that she was
gone. As custom dictated the men went
searched until they found some strangers sleeping. They killed everyone including two
children. They had transferred their sad
feeling to someone else. They felt good
about what they had done.[154]
Native Americans of
There is no universal idea of justice. Western Justice exists, but other senses of
right and wrong exist independently.
Knowing about both Western and other standards of appropriateness is
useful. If we want to judge the
Puritans, for example, we can condemn them for their witch burnings. But we must realize that our condemnation is
invoking Western, not universal, standards.
The Jalé of New Guinea regularly had festivals where they ate those they
had killed in war. They would close the
eyes, mouth and nose with bat bones to keep the spirits in and then eat.[156] When we compare the puritans, using Western
standards, to the diverse spectrum of possibilities that exist their
transgressions seem pretty tame.
We should be conscious of when we should be
judging by Western standards and when we should not. It is appropriate to judge the Puritans by
Western standards – they were Western. It
is not appropriate to judge the Jalé by Western standards. Cannibalism is a very widespread
phenomenon. We choose not to eat human
flesh. That does not mean that others
should not. We do not believe souls
escape through the nose and mouth. What
others believe is not our business. But
we can take pride that, according to Western values, we amongst the most
agreeable people ever. Seeing that there
are various standards should not lead us to abandon our standards. From our vantage point increasing our
affiliation with our mores does more for our causes. We are the culture that does not eat
humans.
Using a dual system of values helps us
understand who we are. When antebellum
Southerners killed their slaves it was a bad thing. Why?
What was the ethic that violated?
It was bad because we respect the individual and their lives. North pacific Native Americans killed their
slaves to impress rival chiefs. Use of
the death penalty is not a time for parties with clowns for us. Unless we knew about the diversity of
cultures that exist we might not realize that our way of life is special. We are a culture that considers the taking of
a human life as significant and solemn.
We judge the killing of children to displace
mourning more harshly than Puritan witch killing. Why?
The children killed to escape mourning had nothing to do with the
supposed death being mourned. The puritans
killed for a bad reason, but at least the supposed crimes were attributed to
those who were killed. We are a culture
that believes in the value of individual life and a sense of justice based on
rational attributions concerning culpability to individuals. Again, we learn what is special about us when
we realize that alternatives exist.
Marind-anim are
located in
We would have probably
questioned the assumption that gang rapes lead to fertility rather than buy
children from others. We scrutinize our
own culture for defects. Our using the
scientific method to find fulfill our secular goals of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness is a wonderful Western contraption. The West does and should judge itself by
Western standards. We have a coherent
value system (coherence is important to us).
We should apply our standard to ourselves in order that we might improve
(improvement is important to us). But just
as it is fair and necessary to blame ourselves for our violations of our ethics;
it is also fair and necessary to give ourselves credit for having created our
ethical system.
We are special in that we have chosen our
values. The extent to which we really do
things out of an application of rational standards is debatable. Halloween does not make sense. We hide Easter eggs because we hide Easter
eggs. There are historical precedents,
but that is not why we do it. Much of
our culture is not chosen. Love of peace
is just assumed to be a virtue. We do
not experiment with headhunting to confirm our hypothesis. But we instinctively know that we cannot
choose to love headhunting, but the experiment would so violate our ethics that
we do not perform it. But within limits
we consider questioning our culture to be a virtue. We may not be continuously doing so at a deep
level. But to the extent that we
consider rational self-scrutiny a virtue we are special.
It is fine and fun
to have public holidays that do not make sense.
They are a big part of what builds collective memories and identities
that support cultural viability. But our
public policy, reflecting our unique cultural tradition, should be decided upon
rationally. The goal that they should
seek to accomplish is securing the blessings of liberty to our selves and our
posterity. These are decidedly Western goals.
Our goals are ours and should be celebrated for this reason. Western policies best protect our values when
they reflect the fact that our beliefs are not the universal default. Our belief system is special.
Diversity,
culpability and responsibility
Dr. Hector García was the founder of the influential Latino rights organization, the G.
I. Forum. Among other incidents, Dr. García was motivated to start this organization
by his visiting Mexican citizens living in
The common view that such poverty can only be
the result of oppression is based on the idea that American levels of attainment
and aspirations are the norm. This is
not true. An anthropologist found a community in
Were the lifestyles of these communities
the fault of the
The government of the
The
This is not racism. This is culturism. Culture is not created by race. Making any sort of human accept the dominant
culture’s way of life is an active one.
Only language was going to make the Spanish speaking group harder to
assimilate than the English speaking group.
It is the job of the government to monitor the cultural assumptions of
the people within its border because no people are naturally reflective. If a white woman is raised in a community
where people think it is okay to beat women, her whiteness will not afford her
any protection. She will assimilate the
dominant mores of the cultural milieu she finds herself in. It is because culture is not build into
people generically or into their race, Western values require active protection
and propagation.
Progressive agendas
Self-scrutiny is healthy for Western cultures. Doubt in our basic competence is not. Our doubt in our greatness and the progress we have brought the world is reflected in the silence that follows the question, “Who are we to judge?” Within our sphere of influence we are very competent to judge. The archeological and anthropological scholarship is overwhelming in our favor of saying we are competent at implementing our values. We have created a world where a person is freer from terror (a Western goal). We have created a world where the Western goals of life, liberty and property are protected. We have done so by discouraging sloth, violence, sexual assault, irrationality and many other natural propensities of man.
Modern anthropology does not use the word “primitive” as it implies too much judgment. This prohibition is upheld despite the clear evidence that some levels of social organization necessarily come after others.[165] Such judgments would run counter to anthropology’s determination to be as objective as possible. As a science, this practice makes sense for anthropology. You cannot appreciate the values of people you have already judged as wanting. Judging a culture in which you are a guest could also cause your invitation to be revoked. However, the general public’s judging by Western standards within Western countries is not only appropriate, it is necessary.
Judging ourselves by our standards is integral
to our culture. Science is the basis of
our vision of progress. Science is based
on doing experiments and judging the results.
Judging based on rational criteria is not the default behavior of
mankind. Decisions being made on the
basis of divination and shamanistic spirit journeys remain widespread. We are the first culture dedicated to
improving the world via scientifically applying our powers to constantly
improving world. We must, however,
recognize that this is special. Rather
than consciously advancing, it is the natural default of cultures to be
conservative; even when this involves a lot of pain.
Protecting our culture means consciously
judging. If you wanted to methodically
investigate which facets of your culture were consciously chosen and which are
ruts, you would not start by looking at matters that your culture already
consciously questions. The facets that
are ‘self-evident’ and beyond questioning are likely to be widely accepted falsehoods. Culturism holds that the inviolability of
individualism instantiated in rights at the expense of the culture is one area
where we have ceased to utilize our critical faculties. The unqualified acceptance of any and all
behaviors in the name of celebrating diversity is another. Our resulting inability to judge behaviors
within our borders provides another example.
Our government’s
deference to Native Americans generating revenue from the traditionally condemned practice of gambling reflects our misreading of the Anthropological record. Gambling was previously relegated to
We cannot assume that our way of life is preferable. Given a choice, many people choose killing
and drugs. To encourage unqualified
diversity is to condone and advocate more than variations of rational
lifestyles. Our celebration of
individual rights and self-governance only represents a cultural
proclivity. Denouncing certain behaviors
is a part of promulgating our unique way of life. The criminal justice system cannot celebrate
diversity as anthropologists understand it.
It is anthropologically ignorant to think that the ways of an English
gentleman are what the result of never judging behavior will be.
Some cultures have
died out because people no longer saw them as worth the hassle of sustaining.[166] Roman culture has been thought to be an
example of this.[167] The
Our technology has
allowed the world population to flourish.
Due to Western technology
our life expectancy is nearly twice that any primitive tribe ever
attained. Our life expectancy is triple
what many achieved. Our civilization has
lowered the world wide bloodshed, enslavement and brutal male dominance that
used to be (and still is in much of the
world) the status quo. We
invented democracy and rights. Other
cultures having tolerance for diversity within their countries is largely a
result of the pressure we exert as a successful country. The best tactic for those who wish to see a
world with rights created is to make sure that a strong progressive culture is
living within our borders. If that
involves telling Native Americans that encouraging the irrational, addictive
and bankrupting habit of gambling in our culture must stop, there are clear
culturist reasons for doing so.
Environmentalism
Humans have been and are an
environmental disaster. Moderns also
feel guilty because they assume that have been taught that indigenous peoples
were environmentalists. At sometime in
their lives most Americans were taught that Native Americans used every part of
each animal they killed out of respect for the sacredness of nature. Alas, in this section Western civilization
cannot be vindicated. We, as all other
populations, have had a huge negative impact on the environment. But the best hope for turning this around
lies in applying Western science to the problems we face. In the meantime, the naïve belief that
indigenous were great environmental stewards does not help; it undermines our sense
of efficacy.
Native Americans were not careful to
preserve the environment at a cost to themselves. Two-thirds of the large mammals present when
humans first arrived in
The Anasazi and their neighbors
occupied much of what are now the states of
Humans are not primarily the rational
analyzers of their situations Westerners take them to be. We, as we shall study later, are built to
absorb and practice a culture. If you were
going to see evidence of people being able to control their fates as a
collective, it would be on islands. On
islands people know the extent of resources available. They can see that there is no vast expanse of
unused resources to exploit beyond what is visible. On
The Maoris of New Zealand drove a
dozen species of large birds to extinction six centuries before the first
Westerner got there.[173] The heavily forested
Modern
man destroys more than his predecessors because he can. Facing that honestly (not idealizing the
past) is the only hope we have. Much of
the West’s self-definition centers on our ideal of ourselves as a scientific
culture. The destruction of the ozone
was halted by monitoring and a rational reaction that no indigenous culture
would or could have done. The West is
also defined by not just blindly accepting traditional ways. As such, we are very adaptable. During World War Two we became an
environmental nation because that was what was needed for the war effort. Had the culture of the inhabitants of
Westerners erroneously believe that
indigenous peoples were wise environmental conservators. It is also, however, widely known that Indians
killed buffalo by stampeding them off of cliffs and then spearing the top
layers. Simultaneously holding these two
views bolsters this chapter’s contention that integrating facts is not a human
priority. Because of our scientific
bent, if any culture has the wherewithal to think and adapt their way out of
our environmental crisis it is the West.
Abandoning our engagement with the Western tradition of scientific
engagement with the world out of a false sense of comparative guilt is
dangerous. Now is the time for
Westerners to recommit themselves to our efficacious culture. Human sacrifice will not solve anything.
Back to the garden
Margaret Mead’s
celebrity outside of the academic anthropology community had tremendous
cultural impact. A basic hippie
counterculture tenet was that we needed to go back to nature. The chorus of the 1960s hit song “
The full historical record shows that Mead’s peaceful Samoans were nearly always at war until European enforced peace.[177] Between 1830 and 1832 one Samoan village had 197 battles.[178] From 1865 to 1871 11.7 percent of the adult male population of a group of islands was killed in war.