Culturism leans towards isolationism, but has a foreign policy. But. first culturism is situational and pragmatic. And reasonable culturists may disagree on roll back, containment or isolation. Specific culturist policies will be put forth herein. We may disagree on particular situations. But, as a culturist, I hope you agree on the precepts.
First of all, if we wish our ideas to spread, and not contract, we need to be strong domestically. If people see us as an example to emulate, they will be attracted to our model. If they see us as a bastion of debt, crime and chaos, they will run from our example. We can have rallies to show our distaste for, for example, the treatment of women in Pakistan. But, before worrying about people adhering to a different culture in Pakistan's Swat valley, we must worry about solvency in the West.
Interfering to impose values violates culturist ethics. If we are to interfere we have to recognize the importance of culture; some cultures are more compatible with western values than others. Japan had a high regard for education and a strong sense of duty. Our imposing democracy there has been somewhat successful. Still their culture is very different than ours. Iran is much less likely to become a progressive democracy. Latin America and Russia have teetering democracies. Not all attempts to spread our values meet equal resistance.
Not only compatibility, but relevance to us comes into play. Countries that are geographically and culturally farther away from us are a lower priority. We should be more worried about Greece than Afghanistan. Australia means more to us than Zimbabwe. While India and Pakistan are equidistant from us, India is closer ideologically. India merits our moral support. Because sides and competition exist there is no “global community.” We have to prioritize our friends and western brethren.
If we are to interfere, it has to be on the basis of pragmatism. We cannot afford to take on more debt in order to try to convert Nigeria into a progressive, rights affirming nation. Nigeria is not so strategically important to us. Even responses to “humanitarian” crisis have to be decided on a culturist basis. Do we have the money or inclination to help tsunami victims or “human rights” violations in Muslim nations? Culturism is against sending “humanitarian” aid to people who hate us. Right now we cannot afford to. Our strength should be our first priority.
Having announced precepts, I will venture some specific foreign policy recommendations. We made a big culturist mistake creating Kosovo, a Muslim majority enclave, in central Europe. We should help Russia with its Muslim lined borders rather than antagonize her. Afghanistan is never going to be our friend. We should kill the 9-11 terrorists, but not give them aid. Western support for Gaza has emboldened Hamas. The ideal of ‘humanitarian aid’ should be heavily tempered by one that recognizes cultural diversity and competition. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. We should militarily destroy their nuclear facilities. But after that, culturism would predict failure in trying to nation build them into a progressive democracy. Besides we do not have the money for it. We have our own infrastructure to repair.
Lastly, culturism rejects the belief that there is a universal desire to be a free acting individual. Culturism not only rejects it metaphysically, but practically. Ruffians that want to bring a culture into bondage are often popular. Cultural diversity exists. If we find some regimes offensive, we can withhold trade, we can denounce their values on our street corners and in the UN. But we likely do not have the money to interfere and when we buy into the western "human rights" doctrine, we undermine sovereignty, support the UN and bolster the ideal of asylum seekers. Remember that aggressive Islam may yet be able to topple us. If they do, the "universal desire to drive towards freedom" may only exist in forgotten globalist neo-con dreams. If we wish to promote western values around the world, protecting and strengthening the West is the best place to start.
www.culturism.us
10 comments:
Culturism, as defined above, is just another brand of defeatism. How 'bout taking all your imperial "we can'ts" and keep them to yourself. Or am I to be imposed upon because of a geographic happenstance? It is true that, pragmatic reasons do, and shall continue to, prevent us from solving all ills, but American culture is individualist, and must be exported and supported as such. Does your "solvency" at home extend to such travesties as the prosecution of Vang Poa? Is your arguement purely economic, or, for reciprocal respect of boudaries, will you prosecute expatriots, that just happen to still believe that the people that they have met and lived with, may still value their lives and freedom?
For pragmatic reasons, our involvement will often need to be clandestine and beyond our full projection of power, but we may want a few ears to the ground while we as a paragon of a modernity, (that is already challenging inferior cultures) are targeted for violent attack.
If you want me to keep my opinions to myself, why write. And why write with such hostility? I put forward views. If you do not like them, please discuss them with me in a courteous way.
Please tell me more about Vang Poa. I have to go and don't know about him / her.
You may also notice that not everyone thinks they are inferior and we are superior. Even people that move to Britain keep on with their "inferior" ways. That they should abandon their faith and join the "paragon of modernity" does not seem apparent to them. If you sit at a table with them do you think you can convince them that our way is better and that they are backwards?
At the risk of repeating my post. If you wish to import our values, the best way is not to impose them via invasion, but to show what good they lead to domestically. At this rate, we are having trouble keeping the West itself "modern."
I am also not sure what you mean by "being imposed upon by geographic happenstance." Please send details.
Thanks for commenting, John
Actually, the suggestion was that you not presume to tell me what "we" can't do, just because I'm not a world away.
Pragmatically, I may agree in certian situations, but I do not have to couch my words, nor pretend that I wouldn't intervene, if I had the ability. Vang Poa is an enthic Hmong, who is being prosecuted by US authorities, for having violated US nuetrality on the issue of the Communist gov't of Loas violently oppressing the Hmong minority. The US should have no such neutrality. We only have such neutrality because of a confederation between those that think we should not intervene because we have no right, and those that think we have no might. Multiculturist and Culturist. Before the proverbial conference wherein I teach the savages table manners, we may want to focus on the pragmatic matter of keeping a a handful of Hmong or Pakistani Christian alive. It may increase our chances of a good attendance.
Pratical considerations will often prevent the US from intervening, but it should be clear that we accede to tyranny only because of such considerations. A crime gets no free pass for being assumed part of an equally valid, or far removed culture.
One practical consideration is that attacks directed against the US have developed from ground we had assumed too far away to influence.
Macusgermanis,
I think I understand you a bit better now.
Firstly, I do not think that the US should persecute people for their beliefs. Outside of people calling for violence domestically in the United States, is unbelievable and unacceptable that people should not be able to express their political views in the United States.
I agree that we should make clear that we have values and we do not approve of behaviors that violate our ethics. (sorry for the use of "we" but it was proceeded by an "I" : ) ) In such situations, disapproval can be shown by, for example, sanctions. I am not suggesting that we support regimes or cultural practices that violate our values.
That said, we need to avoid hubris. We should not assume that "we need to teach savages table manners." We do not have polygamy. We do not do female circumcision. We do not enforce what people wear or whom they pray to. We do not do religion in schools. Islamic nations do. We have democracy and freedom of speech and the right to gather politically. China does not.
Our tendency is to think we are superior and modern on all accounts and that all people desire and deserve our cultural values. In fact, these cultures are beating us up internationally. Islamic nations are expanding into Europe. This is largely being done on the back of claims about universal rights. China is beating us up, economically. It is not obvious to them we are "modern" and so the future. Before we tell others how to live, we (in my humble opinion) should get our own house in order.
To be honest, we often have no idea what is going on in other cultural situations. We often get ourselves into tribal squabbles with hurts we do not understand when we interfere in others' conflicts. When we applied universal values, we ended up protecting Muslims in Europe. This reasoning gets Europe funding Hamas. We increase the odds that our actions will help us when we side with those with whom we have a cultural affinity in regions we understand.
Finally, you are right that threats have come from remote regions. I would argue that is why we need immigration bans on peoples from those regions. Strong borders make good neighbors. And, if they attack us we should strongly retaliate. But, I am dubious as to how much safer we are due to nation building in Afghanistan and trying to change the culture in Iraq. The killing there might have helped, but the attempts to make them progressive nations . . . ?
Sorry my comment is so long. Thanks so much for your conversation on this important issue.
John
In the case of Vang Poa it was a little more than just expressing his political opinion. It is alledged that he and another former CIA operative were placing orders for weapons that were to be smuggled to the Hmong. That does place "culturist" foreign policy in a predicament. To allow such transaction is to implicitly support fundamental human rights in a place were we may not know all particulars, which is precisly what I would suggest. Would a "culturist" allow such transaction, or would they fear getting into "tribal squables?"
Concerning the claims of universal rights claims supporting Islamic encroachment into UK, how do you think shadow secretary Sayeeda Warsi's recent denouncement of polygamy fits into such? Wouldn't it be more productive to insist that human rights be fulfilled, than to consider the concept abused, and therefore to be discarded? The West must insist on common law within its boundaries, and encourage, by whatever subterfuge or open conflict, the same over seas.
The ban on immigration from certian regions is another untenable position. Copts, Maronites, and Hmong are from troubled regions. Once Jews fled from a troubled Germany. "Sorry," says the "culturist" repatriation officer, " you're from a troubled region, invovled in a tribal squabble that we dumb 'mericans just don't understand, and we don't want no trouble with the Furher."
We are safer, without Nazi's harnessing the brilliance of Von Braun. And safer with Islamist training camps training guerilla fighters to operate in Afghanistan, rather than Manhattan.
Mac,
I am sorry, and perhaps I am tired, but I am having trouble following the particulars of all the detailed stories you are describing. Please forgive me if my understanding of them is wrong. Also, it is hard for me to comment on Vang Poa and the Hmong, without knowing the full cultural, political situation. So I will speak in generalities.
Your vision, in my opinion, leans towards cultural imperialism and violates Washington's command to "no foreign entanglements." If we are to do battle for the Hmongs, how many other peoples must we spend our money, blood and attention fighting for? Is there no limit. Would we be in every country, region, neighborhood taking sides and shipping arms? Do you really think undertaking "subterfuge" in so many regions will not entangle us in conflict. Again, is there no limit?
If I understand your point, western nations should not sanctify polygamy, nor Sharia law. These are not western. The world is finite. Wherever Sharia law exists, western law does not. "Human rights" concepts mistakenly assume that these are universal norms. They, in fact, only exist in the West. If we lose ground in the west then western rights (the only rights in the world) disappear.
Your best argument is about the Jews and WW II. First of all, doesn't it show you how far we have come. Our tradition is really strong borders. This open one-world vision of which you speak is diversifying us, not other regions. Beyond that it violates our traditions.
That said, I would have let the Jews in. They are western people from western nations. Jews have been in Europe forever. That does not mean that all Afghanis have a right to be in the US. We do not have a right to emigrate into their region either. Having borders is an international norm. We have a right to ask if the person coming in poses more of a risk or a potential benefit.
And, finally, it is safer to have people plotting in the hills of Afghanistan than in Manhattan. Access to our resources and technology are better here. I only become afraid of Afghanis when they walk the streets of western nations. They cannot throw biological weapons or nukes from Afghanistan to here. That is why immigration laws are important.
Thanks!! John
You may choose not to do actual battle, without interfereing with private filibustering attempts. Washintgton said in reference to the French revolution,
And I do hereby also make known, that whatsoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations, by committing, aiding, or abetting hostilities against any of the said Powers, or by carrying to any of them those articles which are deemed contraband by the modern usage of nations, will not receive the protection of the United States, against such punishment or forfeiture; and further, that I have given instructions to those officers, to whom it belongs, to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons, who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations, with respect to the Powers at war, or any of them.
So, Washington, as opposed to Jefferson did not support any gov't corporate or individual citizen support for the French revolution. Washington's view would bode unfavorably for Vang Poa. But then America had not the strenght that it now has, and foreign powers have no "expectation of gaining from us." (paraphrasing Washington)May we not do as conscience may dictate? Must we remain neutral about Communist gov't of Laos oppressing Hmong, and Islamist oppressing, apostates, women, etc. etc.? I don't expect American forces to be garrisoned in every corner of the globe, but I do expect a free peoples to refrain from prosecuting the tyrants campaign for them. Washington did also sign the Fugitive Slave act of 1793. Such is the fruit of appeasement.
I am sorry, but I do not have an opinion on Vang Poa. For all I know he could be a blood thirsty maniac as well as another rights affirming progressive George Washington.
I believe in cultural diversity. From what I've read, the Hmong relocation to Portland Oregon has been cultural nightmare. They abuse their daughters and wives, have high out of wedlock birth rates and use inordinate amounts of social services. If the book I read wasn't about them it was about another small Asian third world remote culture that did not have progressive values and did not strengthen the local American community into which they were imported in the name of internationalism. Cultural diversity is real.
Again, it is not all or nothing. I would judge whether we should invade or work, as you say, by subterfuge, based on geographical and cultural affinity. On that scale, fighting for the Hmong liberation movement in Laos would rank low.
Your formula of our getting involved in small and remote battles all over the world and open borders seems like an obvious formula for disaster for me. Our first duty is to make sure we and those we know are solvent. That is, in the long and short run, a better way to secure the continuance of western rights on the planet.
Sorry to disagree. Thanks for the discussion.
John
No need to apologize for disagreeing, though I'll take an apology for the apology. There is little more irratating than the presumption that civility must preclude honest and frank discussion.
Abuse of daughters and wives, I consider a bad thing irrespective of where it does occur. In Portland these cultural failings are exposed to better examples and common law. I reject any belief that would suggest that such people are unable to do better. Both the multi-culturist that suggests that I have an undue bias for not beating women, and the culturist that denys possibility of assimilation do argue for a stasis that serves neither immigrant nor indigenous citizen.
Again, it is not all or nothing. I would judge whether we should invade or work, as you say, by subterfuge, based on geographical and cultural affinity. On that scale, fighting for the Hmong liberation movement in Laos would rank low.
Fair enough. Then perhaps you agree that we should be unapologetic, and definatively not neutral, in hosting certian expatriot movements and not interfer with their arms smuggling. This doesn't entail any foreign deployment, nor expenditure of the treasury. It does only involve a free peoples admiting that they are not neutral to the cause of liberty.
Thanks for the disagreement. What else is discussion?
Mac'
Some interesting reading, that mentions Poa, in relation to Afghanistan.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/09/opinion/edkeller.php
Post a Comment