| Political Philosophy |
| Jim Hlavac |
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Political Philosophy
| Political Philosophy Sections |
It is the historical clash of cultures which is at the root of culture bashing
in the modern form. Particularly here in America some sort of
accumulated guilt has manifested itself in disliking or even hating modern
America. Instead, there is a desire to not only preserve, but just possibly
reinstate these primitive cultures. These folks like to say that there was
this garden of Eden with all in perpetual bliss and environmental coziness.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. These American Indian cultures
were just as brutal as all cultures were from the dawn of time. They killed
their neighbors and they enslaved their women. Life was nasty brutish
and short. Why on earth would we want to return to it?
It is also odd that the leaders of the American Indian cultures want the
land back -- and despise the white Europeans who came here and took it
-- but want the fruits of the culture of those Europeans, and later white
Americans. If they truly wanted to preserve their cultures they would go
back to living the way they were on October 11th 1492. That is, no
modern conveniences, not even the horse. But that's not what they want.
What they want in a constant tension so as to create guilt so that they can
basically get a free handout.
So what is it about cultures that are so sacrosanct? We have this need
in modern thought which seems to say that all cultures are identically
worthwhile and that all should be exactly preserved as they are today. The
main problem with this idea is that the ones saying it are in the so-called
advanced cultures and the ones suffering are the ones in the
not-to-be-called primitive cultures. There are plenty of euphemisms for
non-advanced cultures, mostly based on the fallacy that they are somehow
closer to our human nature and our mythical wondrous past. "Traditional
Cultures" seems to lead the pack but there are others.
We can say that surely peoples have the right as a culture to remain
backward, just as individuals within that culture can change it - or more
likely abandon it. But the idea of peoples is ancient, and the only ideas
that truly observes human rights for all the people is the idea of
individualism. The main problem with traditional cultures is that they
denigrate individualism for the preservation of the people.
Concerning primitive or repressive cultures, someone has to say they
are bad. There's no human rights in maintaining that women must live as
slaves to men. In order to elevate the status of women you must destroy
the culture that enslaves them.
Cultural preservationists think that these culture should remain --
despite the primitiveness or repressiveness.
In order to increase life span, cultural change is inevitable. You can't
have modern health care and ancient culture.
Is there any intrinsic reason for cultures as collectives to deserve life in
their entirety -- if their effect on individuals are negative? I.e. Can't some
cultures die?
Engagement with those cultures will keep those people moving out of
their culture.
Because repressive cultures are supported by the top elite, while
individuals want to eliminate the cultural backwardness, hence both
emigration and revolution or civil strife.
All men are created equal -- does this apply only to the North American
continent -- or to all people's of earth?
in the modern form. Particularly here in America some sort of
accumulated guilt has manifested itself in disliking or even hating modern
America. Instead, there is a desire to not only preserve, but just possibly
reinstate these primitive cultures. These folks like to say that there was
this garden of Eden with all in perpetual bliss and environmental coziness.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. These American Indian cultures
were just as brutal as all cultures were from the dawn of time. They killed
their neighbors and they enslaved their women. Life was nasty brutish
and short. Why on earth would we want to return to it?
It is also odd that the leaders of the American Indian cultures want the
land back -- and despise the white Europeans who came here and took it
-- but want the fruits of the culture of those Europeans, and later white
Americans. If they truly wanted to preserve their cultures they would go
back to living the way they were on October 11th 1492. That is, no
modern conveniences, not even the horse. But that's not what they want.
What they want in a constant tension so as to create guilt so that they can
basically get a free handout.
So what is it about cultures that are so sacrosanct? We have this need
in modern thought which seems to say that all cultures are identically
worthwhile and that all should be exactly preserved as they are today. The
main problem with this idea is that the ones saying it are in the so-called
advanced cultures and the ones suffering are the ones in the
not-to-be-called primitive cultures. There are plenty of euphemisms for
non-advanced cultures, mostly based on the fallacy that they are somehow
closer to our human nature and our mythical wondrous past. "Traditional
Cultures" seems to lead the pack but there are others.
We can say that surely peoples have the right as a culture to remain
backward, just as individuals within that culture can change it - or more
likely abandon it. But the idea of peoples is ancient, and the only ideas
that truly observes human rights for all the people is the idea of
individualism. The main problem with traditional cultures is that they
denigrate individualism for the preservation of the people.
Concerning primitive or repressive cultures, someone has to say they
are bad. There's no human rights in maintaining that women must live as
slaves to men. In order to elevate the status of women you must destroy
the culture that enslaves them.
Cultural preservationists think that these culture should remain --
despite the primitiveness or repressiveness.
In order to increase life span, cultural change is inevitable. You can't
have modern health care and ancient culture.
Is there any intrinsic reason for cultures as collectives to deserve life in
their entirety -- if their effect on individuals are negative? I.e. Can't some
cultures die?
Engagement with those cultures will keep those people moving out of
their culture.
Because repressive cultures are supported by the top elite, while
individuals want to eliminate the cultural backwardness, hence both
emigration and revolution or civil strife.
All men are created equal -- does this apply only to the North American
continent -- or to all people's of earth?