Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Ethnocentrism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    "I'll be honest, I can't entirely follow a lot of what Moody is saying..."

    Dude, I am with you. So many "isms" my head is spinning. It is a clever and creative approach though, to be able to slam multiculturism AND Bush in the same post. NOT.

    Multiculturism is a response. Like any response, it is subject to varying degrees appropriateness and of course, misuse. But what the "isms" miss is the simple ebb and flow that is human civilization. Dee said it better, but I personally don't buy into the "two-minutes to midnight" nonsense about any of the "now". And I certainly laugh at the people that equate all that is wrong with the world with a particular government or administration in that government. There have been far greater, far more powerful (relatively speaking) forces at work on this planet, and guess what? We are still here to discuss this. I am sure when Alexander reached India there was more than one pundit of the day that predicted the end of the world and I am sure he would have sounded a lot like Moody if the syntax existed then.

    To me, it sounds like a sophomore level political science class. Lots of new terminology, but not a whole lot of substantial analysis. Sorry if that is too brutal, but....

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DeeCrowSeer
      "multiculturalism"; the argument was made that the content of classes in history, literature, social studies, and other areas reflected what came to be called a "Eurocentric" bias. Few if any women or people of color, or people from outside the Western European tradition, appeared prominently in the curriculums of schools in the United States."
      If that means an Americanocentric position [ie., multiculturalism being unique to the US and its own unique history], fine.
      But the suspicion is that America itself, according to this policy, does not have its own culture, but is rather a patch-work of other cultures which are fighting each other for supremacy - not an eddifying spectacle.

      This is problematic in itself because Multiculturalism has been a policy not just in the USA but in the Western World generally.
      If it has been exported from the US, then this is a kind of '[multi]cultural imperialism', because the policy is not appropriate to non-American countries.

      Why? Because European countries are going to be 'Eurocentric', just as African nations will be 'Afrocentric', just as China will be 'Sinocentric' ! etc., etc.,

      All healthy Beings are centred in their own Being.

      Multiculturalism is a symptom of a fractured American un-Selfing.

      The argument itself is derived from European-type thinking, anyway; the whole university system derives from Europe, possibly having its roots in Plato's Academy.

      But let's look at this more deeply; have not Europeans been the most outward-looking of peoples? Doesn't our notion of history begin with Herodotus's work which ranges over the known-world of the time?

      What was 'history' to non-Europeans at that time?

      When I read great European authors from the past 3,000 years, I note how wide their cultural frames of references are; the ancient Greeks I have already mentioned: notice how the Romans ABSORBED different cultures. In relgion they tended to add the religions of others to their own polytheism.

      There has always been a fascination with the East in Europe, a constant tendency to Orientalism. We see this interest in other cultures alive in the Renaissance and in the 19th century.
      Read Byron, a man steeped in this kind of Otherness fascination.

      BUT, these great Europeans were not 'multiculturalists', as they had a strong sense of their own Cultural Self-hood; they were Healthy Natural Beings.
      The bleatings of Multiculturalism would only have engendered their contempt - a politically correct Byron?
      Perish the thought!

      The phrases used above, such as "people of colour", "people outside the European tradition", are fairly nonsensical unless some examples can be given of such entities.
      If not, then I will continue to believe that this kind of empty rhetoric intends only to undermine the European tradition for political purposes.
      It is insincere.

      I find that a wide range of sources helps keep the evolution ticking over.
      My argument is that the culture of 'Dead White Males' was actually wider than today's Multiculturalism which is artistically/philosophically redundant to my mind.
      Also, the worse we can do is to try and make evolution happen; evolution is indifferent to the "best laid plans of mice and men which 'gan oft awry".

      I hesitate from going too far down the road of declaring what is "natural" and what is "unnatural" or decadent. Spectacles are "unnatural", but I'd like to keep mine with me if that's okay with you guys. Computers are "decadent" to some people, but here we all are...
      I am talking about the attempt to socially engineer; the use of tools of any kind [such as computers or specs] is natural to man who is a tool-making animal.
      I am referring rather to the attempt to 'correct' human nature ['nature', not 'natural'] - that is the tragedy of Multiculturalism.

      If you're "testing" the notion of world without any female contributions to art and culture, then I have absolutely no wish to see your vision come to pass. No offence.
      Without women attending to the MOST IMPORTANT ROLE IN ALL OF LIFE - that of nurturing the next generation [why is this role so belittled by Multiculturalfascism?] then NOTHING WILL come to pass ... at least from vanished Europeans.
      But perhaps that's the real agenda, a 'final solution of the European Problem'.

      Originally posted by Berry Sizemore
      I suspect that those who oppose ... multiculturalism ... support various 'final solutions'
      I tend not to believe in 'finality'; to me the Multiverse is in a state of Eternal Recurrence - all things [even multiculturalism!] are doomed to return an infinite number of times.
      The Tragedy Begins ...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Moody
        I would say that multiculturaism IN PRAXIS must entail political-correctness; how else can you get all those monoculturalists to give up their ways and adopt the New Gospel of Multiculturalism?
        Moody, you crack me up. Your nonsensical ramblings in this thread are really too funny satire. But would you believe it, there are really some people who might seriously go on like this.

        If I get them right, their view is that any sign of different people living peacefully side by side by side and accepting their differences, maybe even revelling in the joys offered by variety, leads to certain death; and that killing each other is the only way to survive. Something like that, anyway. I probably fail to catch the logic completely, but your send-up of it was hilarious. Moorcock had better watch out if you decide to collect this stuff into a book and compete with the Pyat sequence.

        Thanks for the romp.
        "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Etive
          Are we not all part of the natural world? Do we not at least have the responsibility to maintain some kind of order within our species?
          I agree with you; but our Order will reflect that of Nature.
          The Highest Cultures always looked to Nature ['as above, so below'] for clues in the establishment of Order [Rangordnung].
          The Human complementarity with Nature.

          As for multiculturalism we are all already a blend of many races; I have no race: I make mankind my race.
          You make the fundamental mistake of reading "race" where I said "culture".
          While I agree that the Ethnic is an important part of the Cultural, there is no charge here for racial purity.
          I say rather that cultures are like macrocosms of the individual who is the microcosm.
          Just as the individual needs to be centred and secure in his sense of Self, so too does a culture need to have its own centre.
          ONLY THEN can it grow and expand if it doth so wish, and take in other cultures; but only on the basis of its own solid foundations.

          Multiculturalism is ACTUALLY an attack at the foundations of EUROPEAN culture.
          Because Multiculturalism has targeted only one one culture, that of Europe, out of thousands of others, it must be seen as MENDACIOUS.

          I don't think how we live could get much more "artificial".
          I am not referring so much to the artifices of technological development [that is another argument]; I am referring rather to the Marxist derived ideal that man can be re-engineered. It is the latter notion which I attack as this is the root of Multiculturalism.


          Do not think that the natural world doesn't have it's own "multiculturalism" wars.
          A nice idea, but it doesn't have legs in this debate. Multiculturalism is the attempt to remove 'Eurocentrism' from Western culture - I dare you to find a parallel to that in Nature!

          Feminism in the traditional "equality" sense is fine. Men and women are not that far apart.
          'Not that far' - so you admit that there IS a difference!
          Look at the tiny 'difference' between Humans and the Chimpanzee - it is the difference that makes ALL the ... difference.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jagged
            any sign of different people living peacefully side by side by side and accepting their differences, maybe even revelling in the joys offered by variety, leads to certain death; and that killing each other is the only way to survive.
            That kind of joyous existence is possible only WITHOUT Multiculturalism; the latter is the progenitor and engine-room of social conflict and anomie.
            But you paint an apolitical picture - where is the power-base in your scenario?
            Is it in only ONE of the different peoples, like the Sunnis formerly in Iraq?
            Is it in a coalition of all of them as in the EU?
            Or do they all accept that God is their ruler as in Iran?
            Or do they all live in a secular enviroment which tells them that it is a 'democracy'?
            Do they all adhere to a unifying culture above and beyond [or parallel to] their own?
            So what is Multiculturalism?
            Why, as has been pointed out, it is actually an attempt to destroy 'Eurocentrism'; and what is 'Eurocentrism'?
            It is comparable to Afrocentrism, Judaeocentrism etc., etc.,
            So why has Europe been singled out for attack?
            MULTICULTURALISM IS NOTHING MORE THAN ANTI-EUROPEANISM.
            It is anti-White Racism.

            Originally posted by Bill
            Multiculturalism is subject to varying degrees of appropriateness
            I disagree; as it is anti-European by its own definition, then it is fundamentally PREJUDICED.
            It resembles ANTI-SEMITISM.
            Is anti-Semitism sometimes ... "appropriate"?

            Comment


            • #21
              Yes, yes. Against women some men appear like chimpanzees ...!

              Otherwise interpreted your comparison is demanding a lot of patience, don't you think?
              But what would the solutions be to your problems with multiculturalism as we have it, whether you like it not not? "Ethnic cleansing" like the radical Serbs tried a short while ago?
              Google ergo sum

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LEtranger
                men [and] chimpanzees ...
                Otherwise interpreted your comparison is demanding a lot of patience, don't you think?
                But what would the solutions be to your problems with multiculturalism as we have it, whether you like it not not? "Ethnic cleansing" like the radical Serbs tried a short while ago?
                My problems?
                There is no ACTUAL Multiculturalism, just as there was no ACTUAL Communism; rather it is the apparatus of both ideologies which is harmful, as they seek to re-make man in an artificial mold.

                The 'humans [not male] and chimpanzees' comparison was meant as an example of how a very little difference [in this case the tiny genetic difference between two closely related species] can have huge ramifications.
                Likewise, the differences that you admit between men and women have adverted to their effectively pronounced and differing gender roles over millennia, - as a key to our species' success.
                I understand not your refererence to 'patience'.

                Multiculturalism is presented by its adherents as a 'solution' - as I have said, a 'solution to the European problem' as the Multiculturalists see it.

                Of course, the former Yugoslavia exploded into bitter ethnic conflict after the collapse of the oppressive Politically Correct Soviet machinery.

                The Communists had suppressed all these genuine cultural differences under the heel of their Ideology to which Multiculturalism has some links.

                Indeed, Sovietism attacked Western Imperialism and 'racism' in a very similar way.

                And just as the Communist attempt to Socially engineer a New Man failed, then so will Multiculturalism.
                It too will CREATE conflicts that were not there in the first place, as did Communism.

                Just as many now wonder how they fell for Communism, I wonder if those currently in thrall to anti-European-racism [otherwise known as Multiculturalism] will see the error of their ways?
                Of course, they think that being Multicultural is being very NICE and very MORAL.
                HOW WRONG THEY ARE!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Race/ breeding and culture go hand in hand don't they?

                  If the spread of different races brings with it different cultural aspects shouldn't these be embraced? I don't think culture should be nailed down to where it comes from, a willingness to explore and accept other's traditions is vital in any community right?

                  Isn't culture a way of life, a personal thing for everyone?

                  I don't get the impression that European culture is at risk. Perhaps you could give some examples?
                  I am not a political person and like others have said I find this thread hard to follow what is "Eurocentrism"? I also don't know much about Marxism, excuse.

                  What is your big difference between men and women (non-physical)? If it's about bearing children, I believe that it is optional and yes the woman does seem to shoulder most of the responsibility for the upbringing of the child by natural design, but also no need for the discrimination my friend faced as a single father or women losing their jobs during pregnancy.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Etive, don't apologize at all. Look closely at what is going on here (in fact you hinted at it in another thread). I am not 100% sure yet what the actual agenda is here, but there is an agenda.

                    As most here would vouch, I am all for a detailed intellectual debate, particularly one that pokes at accepted and outdated norms. But this ain't it. Or, wait, no, I am sorry, "This DOTH ain't it.". This is a lot of politico-babble.

                    The driver of all mankind (and most of nature as well) is power. Be it the search for power, the fight for power, the rejection of power, the revolution from out from underneath power, or what not. Even money/economics are merely a vehicle for power.

                    "Multiculturalism" is, at worst, a rejection of the power that has historically come from a European base (and I will grant you that this might include more of the Northern Hemisphere; certainly the Western part of the Nortern Hemisphere). That I will grant you; but it is a highly cynical - and likely agenda-driven - point to say that it is a form of racism and solely anti-Europeanism. ((CRAP - NOW I AM USING THE "ISMS")). I think it is a calculated stretch to say that the promotion of all existing cultures and races relative to the dominant is a form of "racism".

                    And by the way, if you think the "attack" on Eurocentrism is strong now, please wait patiently for not more than 10 years; by that time China, India, and Pakistan ALONE will account for over HALF of the world's population. You haven't even seen multiculturism yet, my friend.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      My moodiest Prophet of True Nature.

                      My, that was a lot of far-reaching questions -- you're quite getting me running here when I would rather put on my fez and have a lunch of pork fillet and rice, with a glass of sangria (psst, Bill, could that be the agenda?).

                      where is the power-base in your scenario?
                      There wasn't one. I would hope that my "scenario" (peaceful co-excistence and synthesis of the best of different cultures) might be possible in several political systems. I'll come out, though, and admit that I personally would prefer the power-base to be with the people.

                      Is it in only ONE of the different peoples, like the Sunnis formerly in Iraq?
                      Would it be too Unnatural to want everybody's needs and wants taken into concern so far as possible?

                      Is it in a coalition of all of them as in the EU?
                      Or do they all accept that God is their ruler as in Iran?
                      Or do they all live in a secular enviroment which tells them that it is a 'democracy'?

                      A notorious hedonist, I would go for the decadent solution of a secular forum of decisions and a 'democracy' (even if I have to put it in inverted commas), working slowly towards an ideal state of anarchy if one day mankind gets mature enough and the social circumstances right for it.

                      Do they all adhere to a unifying culture above and beyond [or parallel to] their own?
                      Whatever feels best for the individual, that individual should pursue, so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others.

                      So what is Multiculturalism?
                      No idea. I didn't bring up the term.

                      Why, as has been pointed out, it is actually an attempt to destroy 'Eurocentrism'; and what is 'Eurocentrism'?
                      Again, no idea. I don't even think I understand the question, sorry.

                      It is comparable to Afrocentrism, Judaeocentrism etc., etc.,
                      So why has Europe been singled out for attack?

                      I'm sorry if I seem to have attacked Europe in particular. Never intended to. Actually, I think Europe is doing fairly well these days on the general world stage. In case you don't mean me, but the Conspiracy of Unnature attacking Europe, I have to pass on the question, since I don't agree with its premises.

                      Now, let me ask you just one thing which I need clarified to understand what you're getting at: Is there such a thing as Unnatural Nature?
                      "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Etive
                        Race/ breeding and culture go hand in hand don't they?
                        They do, largely, and this is why Multiculturalism's attack on 'Eurocentrism' is anti-WHITE Racism, in general terms.

                        As I have shown, the best way to test present prejudices is to substitute something like 'Afrocentrism' for Eurocentrism - then you get the picture.

                        I don't get the impression that European culture is at risk. Perhaps you could give some examples?
                        European culture is in sharp decline; where are today's Goethes, Shakespeares, Dantes, Bachs, Schopenhauers, Wagners, Michelangelos, Nietzsches, Leonardos, Delacroixs, Bacons, Beethovens, Goyas, Descartes, Miltons, etc., etc., ?
                        Where is High Culture in Europe [apart from in the museums]?

                        Look also at the low European birth-rates and the concommitant increasingly aging population.

                        Europe is in cultural AND demographic decline - this is PALPABLE.

                        There is no sense of destiny, just a suicidal hedonistic nihilism.

                        Hence the rise of Multiculturalism, a symptom of this degeneration.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Bill
                          The driver of all mankind is power...
                          Be it the search for power ... the rejection of power ...
                          Contradiction; if power is REJECTED, then something else is sought as nature abhors a vacuum.
                          Those that reject power desire something other than power, therefore power [by your own admission] cannot be the sole driver of mankind.
                          What else is there?
                          Try right and wrong; might is not always right.

                          Multiculturalism is, at worst, a rejection of the power that has historically come from a European base ...
                          I think it is a calculated stretch to say that the promotion of all existing cultures and races relative to the dominant is a form of "racism".
                          Are you saying that White Europeans cannot suffer racism?
                          You claim that life is all about power; so in 'rejecting' one power, the rejector is therefore trying to assert his own power over that rejected.

                          Is Black Power preferable to White Power?

                          Is it WRONG to "promote" European culture?
                          Why so?

                          Why is it right to promote non-European culture and reject/attack European culture?

                          Is it right to take young European's culture away from them, to imbue them with guilt and self-loathing?

                          Is it right to preach negatively against any person's native/ethnic culture?

                          No, Multiculturalism has defined itself in this thread [with the agreement of its supporters] as anti-European.

                          Anti-European;
                          Anti-Negro;
                          Anti-Semitic;

                          What's the difference?

                          Multiculturalism is negative, prejudiced and genocidal; if it were merely about "promotion" it would not SCAPE-GOAT "Eurocentrism".

                          And by the way, if you think the "attack" on Eurocentrism is strong now, please wait patiently for not more than 10 years.
                          You sound like you are positively looking forward to it!
                          So why pretend it is nothing other than hate and revenge - your relish of that future speaks volumes.

                          I am 100% Eurocentric and I will apologise to NO ONE for the genius of the European

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Jagged
                            I would hope that my "scenario" (peaceful co-excistence and synthesis of the best of different cultures) might be possible ...
                            According to Bill, life is all about power; if that is so, peace will NEVER reign.

                            I personally would prefer the power-base to be with the people...
                            What people? The baying mob who want the head of everyone who dares to stand out from the crowd?
                            "The People"?
                            Look at the 'people' rampant in the Terror days of the French Revolution - beware of the mass mentality and what they are capable of.

                            Would it be too Unnatural to want everybody's needs and wants taken into concern so far as possible?
                            Yes, and too Utopian too; for even if it were possible, some of the 'everybodies' would be disatisfied and want more than his fellows. Others would feel that they are hard-done-by, even if, relatively speaking, they had all their needs catered for.
                            Humans are ungrateful beats are they not?

                            ... A notorious hedonist, I would go for the decadent solution of a secular forum of decisions and a 'democracy', working slowly towards an ideal state of anarchy ...
                            Whatever feels best for the individual, that individual should pursue, so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others.
                            And that latter is the limitation on hedonism and anarchism which is never heeded. This is why hedonists decline quickly without trace, and why anachism has never worked practice.
                            As for " 'democracy' "; this is a misnomer - it is better to call it 'plutocracy', or 'oligarchy'.
                            Would you force secularism on the religious?

                            Is there such a thing as Unnatural Nature?
                            That is a contradiction in terms, of course.
                            This is not to deny that life is full of paradoxes, of course. But once you start to describe a piece of nature as un-natural you are in effect shifting its classification from positive to negative.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Moody
                              According to Bill, life is all about power; if that is so, peace will NEVER reign.
                              Maybe, but I'm not Bill. Anyway, why don't we let him speak for himself?

                              Originally posted by Moody
                              What people? The baying mob who want the head of everyone who dares to stand out from the crowd?
                              "The People"?
                              Look at the 'people' rampant in the Terror days of the French Revolution - beware of the mass mentality and what they are capable of.
                              All the people, including both the goodies and the badies, and even the grey-zones. I admit that it's not a fool-proof system, but it seems to me to work better than tyranny. The rampant mob of the French revolution grew out of a monarchy, not out of democracy, by the way.

                              Originally posted by Moody
                              Humans are ungrateful beats are they not?
                              I wouldn't say so. I think humans are a bit more complicated than that, and that most of us have the potential of both generosity and selfishness.

                              Originally posted by Moody
                              As for " 'democracy' "; this is a misnomer - it is better to call it 'plutocracy', or 'oligarchy'.
                              Call it what you want. I'm more interested in the concept itself than wheter to name it with a superlative or an injective.

                              Originally posted by Moody
                              Would you force secularism on the religious?
                              Certainly not. But I would defend the atheist who has some religion forced upon him or her by the religious.

                              Originally posted by Moody
                              But once you start to describe a piece of nature as un-natural you are in effect shifting its classification from positive to negative.
                              If they didn't somehow grow out of Nature, then where do all these Evils that are not Nature come from?

                              (Edited to turn "grew" into "grow")
                              "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Oh,Moody, I think you're just full of angst. Did some darkie take away your girl friend (or boy friend?) or what's worrying you some much? Europe is still producing lots of geniuses in all fields and is a pretty stable place with lot's of reason to be confident (also because we have gradually learnt from the past, the bloody past namely the "camps", the French Revolution eating her children, the "Ethnic Cleansing" and all) . We are in no way perfect, but we know it, which exactly makes us even stronger. The likes of those yearning for racial and cultural purity are a sad anachronism. They are out there in the woods making fires, observing weird moon rites and carving runes on stones and maybe even on their penises (virile culture, hihi), but they are just a lost bunch that will finally reach old age full of bitterness, because they missed the richness of life as it is now. Wake up, find yourself a new boy friend and enjoy life again - in our old Europe that has never been fresher than today. And if you need a break take "Trans-Love-Airways" across the Atlantic and enjoy life there where it isn't so different, except for a nauseating bombardment of advertising.

                                Buenas noches, gute Nacht,mein liebling, bon nuit, cali nikta
                                y un gran besito pa' ti, kwaheri, Bwana!
                                Google ergo sum

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X