The Pyres of Autumn - Jean Baudrillard

[Hakluyt]

http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR27101.shtml

New Left Review 37, January-February 2006

JEAN BAUDRILLARD

THE PYRES OF AUTUMN


Fifteen hundred cars had to burn in a single night and then, on a descending scale, nine hundred, five hundred, two hundred, for the daily ‘norm’ to be reached again, and people to realize that ninety cars on average are torched every night in this gentle France of ours. A sort of eternal flame, like that under the Arc de Triomphe, burning in honour of the Unknown Immigrant. Known now, after a lacerating process of revision—but still in trompe l’oeil.

The French exception is no more, the ‘French model’ collapsing before our eyes. But the French can reassure themselves that it is not just theirs but the whole Western model which is disintegrating; and not just under external assault—acts of terrorism, Africans storming the barbed wire at Melilla—but also from within. The first conclusion to be drawn from the autumn riots annuls all pious official homilies. A society which is itself disintegrating has no chance of integrating its immigrants, who are at once the products and savage analysts of its decay. The harsh reality is that the rest of us, too, are faced with a crisis of identity and disinheritance; the fissures of the banlieues are merely symptoms of the dissociation of a society at odds with itself. As Hélé Béji [1] has remarked, the social question of immigration is only a starker illustration of the European’s exile within his own society. Europe’s citizens are no longer integrated into ‘European’—or ‘French’—values, and can only try to palm them off on others.

‘Integration’ is the official line. But integration into what? The sorry spectacle of ‘successful’ integration—into a banalized, technized, upholstered way of life, carefully shielded from self-questioning—is that of we French ourselves. To talk of ‘integration’ in the name of some indefinable notion of France is merely to signal its lack.

It is French—more broadly, European—society which, by its very process of socialization, day by day secretes the relentless discrimination of which immigrants are the designated victims, though not the only ones. This is the change on the unequal bargain of ‘democracy’. This society faces a far harder test than any external threat: that of its own absence, its loss of reality. Soon it will be defined solely by the foreign bodies that haunt its periphery: those it has expelled, but who are now ejecting it from itself. It is their violent interpellation that reveals what has been coming apart, and so offers the possibility for awareness. If French—if European—society were to succeed in ‘integrating’ them, it would in its own eyes cease to exist.

Yet French or European discrimination is only the micro-model of a worldwide divide which, under the ironical sign of globalization, is bringing two irreconcilable universes face to face. The same analysis can be reprised at global level. International terrorism is but a symptom of the split personality of a world power at odds with itself. As to finding a solution, the same delusion applies at every level, from the banlieues to the House of Islam: the fantasy that raising the rest of the world to Western living standards will settle matters. The fracture is far deeper than that. Even if the assembled Western powers really wanted to close it—which there is every reason to doubt—they could not. The very mechanisms of their own survival and superiority would prevent them; mechanisms which, through all the pious talk of universal values, serve only to reinforce Western power and so to foment the threat of a coalition of forces that dream of destroying it.

But France, or Europe, no longer has the initiative. It no longer controls events, as it did for centuries, but is at the mercy of a succession of unforeseeable blow-backs. Those who deplore the ideological bankruptcy of the West should recall that ‘God smiles at those he sees denouncing evils of which they are the cause’. If the explosion of the banlieues is thus directly linked to the world situation, it is also—a fact which is strangely never discussed—connected to another recent episode, solicitously occluded and misrepresented in just the same way: the No in the eu Constitutional referendum. Those who voted No without really knowing why—perhaps simply because they did not wish to play the game into which they had so often been trapped; because they too refused to be integrated into the wondrous Yes of a ‘ready for occupancy’ Europe—their No was the voice of those jettisoned by the system of representation: exiles too, like the immigrants themselves, from the process of socialization. There was the same recklessness, the same irresponsibility in the act of scuppering the eu as in the young immigrants’ burning of their own neighbourhoods, their own schools; like the blacks in Watts and Detroit in the 1960s. Many now live, culturally and politically, as immigrants in a country which can no longer offer them a definition of national belonging. They are disaffiliated, as Robert Castel [2] has put it.

But it is a short step from disaffiliation to desafío—defiance. All the excluded, the disaffiliated, whether from the banlieues, immigrants or ‘native-born’, at one point or another turn their disaffiliation into defiance and go onto the offensive. It is their only way to stop being humiliated, discarded or taken in hand. In the wake of the November fires, mainstream political sociology spoke of integration, employment, security. I am not so sure that the rioters want to be reintegrated on these lines. Perhaps they consider the French way of life with the same condescension or indifference with which it views theirs. Perhaps they prefer to see cars burning than to dream of one day driving them. Perhaps their reaction to an over-calculated solicitude would instinctively be the same as to exclusion and repression.

The superiority of Western culture is sustained only by the desire of the rest of the world to join it. When there is the least sign of refusal, the slightest ebbing of that desire, the West loses its seductive appeal in its own eyes. Today it is precisely the ‘best’ it has to offer—cars, schools, shopping centres—that are torched and ransacked. Even nursery schools: the very tools through which the car-burners were to be integrated and mothered. ‘Screw your mother’ might be their organizing slogan. And the more there are attempts to ‘mother’ them, the more they will. Of course, nothing will prevent our enlightened politicians and intellectuals from considering the autumn riots as minor incidents on the road to a democratic reconciliation of all cultures. Everything indicates that on the contrary, they are successive phases of a revolt whose end is not in sight.

[Donny the Punk]

The superiority of Western culture is evinced in its institutions, ideas and innovations, not irrelevant material luxuries. These are merely products of a civilisational course which values the individual, his rights and intelligence, and his ability to improve himself and the world he inhabits.

Burning cars is not a rejection of society, but an expression of rage. Immigrants have, beyond all the expectations and prejudices of theatricals who would defend the 'purity' of the nation, adopted Occidental intellectual mores to a tee. However anger communicates itself, it is a response to a perceived injustice; a sense of injustice taught by the adoptive society, one which does not exist in their countries of origin. Or if it does, it is there but for Europe.

There are no irreconcilable universes, only the desperate prating of homogenisers desperate for the shadows of imperfection. They would defend what their like vituperated scare four generations prior. Those who would recall that 'God smiles at those he sees denouncing evils of which they are the cause' would do better to remember that humility saves and humiliation damns. European cultures, which are not gothic cathedrals and roman stadia, however lovely, will bear out should they choose to respond and extend willing hands to their inevitable inheritors instead of cloistering themselves in superstition.

China and America may for the nonce hold the initiative in world affairs, but the ability to wage war, to make relief efforts, to provide brilliant standards of living and education are the legacy of all (and only) the Western world's countries. That must needs never be forgot. Impotence is an illusion, spurred both by paranoia and the recent apogee of post-modernist thought, the former perennial and the latter a trend, no more.

It should be lastly remarked upon that the 'No' vote is precisely an exercise in the use of that precious system of representation from which we are all supposedly so irredeemably 'jettisoned'. Perhaps M. Baudrillard ought to put down La Nausée and pick up La Peste for a change.

N.B. Next time write your own stuff. Replying to a poster who is not the author of his own ideas is tedious.

[Hakluyt]

The superiority of Western culture is evinced in its institutions, ideas and innovations, not irrelevant material luxuries.
The appeal (where it still exists) is largely for the latter, 'superiority' defined here as a matter of perception

Immigrants have, beyond all the expectations and prejudices of theatricals who would defend the 'purity' of the nation, adopted Occidental intellectual mores to a tee.
As means to an end, to secure those material things. There is more to being a Westerner than embracing its manifest principles (and select ones, at that) - there is identity, and this is the core issue in France

There are no irreconcilable universes, only the desperate prating of homogenisers desperate for the shadows of imperfection. They would defend what their like vituperated scare four generations prior. Those who would recall that 'God smiles at those he sees denouncing evils of which they are the cause' would do better to remember that humility saves and humiliation damns. European cultures, which are not gothic cathedrals and roman stadia, however lovely, will bear out should they choose to respond and extend willing hands to their inevitable inheritors instead of cloistering themselves in superstition.
Who are the homogenisers, those seeking to preserve established identities and organise society to accord with their dignity, or those after some impossible ideal of 'integration'? A society ethnically diverse but without a soul, forced into a myopic pseudo-culture of the lowest common denominator, is far more 'homogenised' than one ethnically pure but culturally authentic.

Differences need not be irreconcilable for them to be valuable in their own right

It should be lastly remarked upon that the 'No' vote is precisely an exercise in the use of that precious system of representation from which we are all supposedly so irredeemably 'jettisoned'. Perhaps M. Baudrillard ought to put down La Nausée and pick up La Peste for a change.
That's inane. Simply voting does not equate to conciliation with the system itself.

N.B. Next time write your own stuff. Replying to a poster who is not the author of his own ideas is tedious.
...are you telling me not to post articles?

[Fade the Butcher]

These are merely products of a civilisational course which values the individual, his rights and intelligence, and his ability to improve himself and the world he inhabits.

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/mcvictory.jpg

[Donny the Punk]

Superiority is a tangible, objective quality in nationhood as in other things. It shows itself in sanitation, human rights and freedoms, prosperity, meaningful and sustained contribution to the arts and sciences, the ability to feed a population of millions and everything inbetween. These are qualities propagated by institutions (in this case, democratic, technocratic, and capitalist) with mindful intent. Shopping centres and parkades full of Citroëns are causes, not effects.

As means to an end, to secure those material things.
Immigrants adopted French moral thinking as a cynical ploy to obtain material goods and then burned them out of a sense of... what? You beggar the question. There is no indication that they are trying to pull the temple down around their ears, especially as the merest handful of France 6 million Arab Muslims rioted this past year. This acceptance of Western standards is thorough and unthkinking.

Being a Westerner involves only adhering to that which is unique in the West. I don't see why you types don't learn any history, as it would do you some good in conversations like these. A hundred and fifty years ago, the differences between a Parisian and a Pyrenéesian were a thousandfold more pronounced than the differences between the same and an Iranian today, the former during an antecedent epoch of supposed cultural 'purity' prior to immigrant 'invasion'.

Who are the homogenisers, those seeking to preserve established identities and organise society to accord with their dignity, or those after some impossible ideal of 'integration'?
Again, you beggar the question. I see integration working quite dandily here as in most places on earth, making your exemplars of dissonance the exception and not the rule. Those too shall pass. Speaking of 'preserv[ing] established identities', perhaps you missed the irony. Look again: They would defend what their like vituperated scare four generations prior. Change will happen whether you will it or no. Energy is wasted by those who would seek to prevent it rather than direct it.

A society ethnically diverse but without a soul, forced into a myopic pseudo-culture of the lowest common denominator, is far more 'homogenised' than one ethnically pure but culturally authentic.

Differences need not be irreconcilable for them to be valuable in their own right
France lost its soul during the Third Republic's secularisation, and I don't see you complaining about that. :p In any event, your stymied view of integration is preventing you from making any fair judgements about it. It is not as it is practised in your country (and I assume you are American), a melting pot of no merit or worth. Integration is a cross-pollination, as it were. A Chinaman in Canada learns to play Baroque piano concertos and discuss Enlightenment philosophy at the same time as he offers us his dim sum and invites us to celebrate his new year, whereby we all benefit without losing ourselves. It is an enrichment and it occurs on a daily basis, millions of times all across the world.

That's inane. Simply voting does not equate to conciliation with the system itself.
What a totally bizarre argument. Why do people vote if they are not reconciled to the practice? Who holds a gun to their heads? Are you suggesting that without direct political power, people would be more content with the present régime than with some measure of control over their fates? You need to think these through a little better.

...are you telling me not to post articles?
Yes, it's boring. Articles, along with all other sources of reference, are meant to be used as evidence to support a personal thesis. Deferring to the insights of others is a counterfeit of intellectualism.

[Fade the Butcher]

Superiority is a tangible, objective quality in nationhood as in other things. It shows itself in sanitation, human rights and freedoms, prosperity, meaningful and sustained contribution to the arts and sciences, the ability to feed a population of millions and everything inbetween.

You would consider Canada to be one of these superior nations, right? I am assuming here that you have arrived at this conclusion through your observation of all the great accomplishments in philosophy, art, music, architecture, literature, poetry and so on that we can attribute to Canadians.

Note: Hakluyt = Luh_Windan, one of your fellow citizens. :)

[Fade the Butcher]

A Chinaman in Canada learns to play Baroque piano concertos and discuss Enlightenment philosophy at the same time as he offers us his dim sum and invites us to celebrate his new year, whereby we all benefit without losing ourselves.

Baroque piano concertos. There you have an artistic form that originated in liberal democracies unlike, say, hip hop.

[Donny the Punk]

You would consider Canada to be one of these superior nations, right? I am assuming here that you have arrived at this conclusion through your observation of all the great accomplishments in philosophy, art, music, architecture, literature, poetry and so on that we can attribute to Canadians.
Of course, Canada is consistently ranked as one of the best places on earth to inhabit. Whether it be the minor literary masterpieces of of W.O. Mitchell, Wallace Stegner, Al Purdy or Guy Vanderhaeghe, or the discovery of insulin and now the cure for diabetes with platelet cell transfusions, the invention of peacekeeping and the bereaved Avro Aeronautics programme (the legacy of which engendered the Canadarm), the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Quebec city to Parliament in Ottawa, Canada is at the forefront of most things. We are loved and respected by all the world. It becomes even more impressive when you consider its meagre population of 30 million and its short, 150 year history. McDonalds is American, by the way.

Note: Hakluyt = Luh_Windan, one of your fellow citizens. :)
Corrupted, then. :D

[Donny the Punk]

Baroque piano concertos. There you have an artistic form that originated in liberal democracies unlike, say, hip hop.
Unlike, say, the chef-d'oeuvres of Philip Glass and V.S. Naipaul. Save your scapegoats for the more credulous. :p

[Dan Dare]

What is this we spy, a real-life Immigration Enthusiast?

...Immigrants adopted French moral thinking as a cynical ploy to obtain material goods and then burned them out of a sense of... what? You beggar the question. There is no indication that they are trying to pull the temple down around their ears, especially as the merest handful of France 6 million Arab Muslims rioted this past year. This acceptance of Western standards is thorough and unthkinking.

I believe the record indicates that the rioting immigrants were not destroying their property, rather that of others.

Integration is a cross-pollination, as it were. A Chinaman in Canada learns to play Baroque piano concertos and discuss Enlightenment philosophy at the same time as he offers us his dim sum and invites us to celebrate his new year, whereby we all benefit without losing ourselves. It is an enrichment and it occurs on a daily basis, millions of times all across the world.

That being the case, it would seem that the greatest good for the greatest number of Canadians would come from admitting as many Chinamen as can be enticed to turn up. That should be quite simple to arrange, since there is for all practical purposes an almost inexhaustible supply. If that doesn't do the trick, then there are always lots and lots of Indians in the wings.

What a totally bizarre argument. Why do people vote if they are not reconciled to the practice? Who holds a gun to their heads?

Not as bizarre as it might appear. In a number of liberal democracies it is an offence not to cast a vote in a national election. Belgium and Australia come to mind.

[Donny the Punk]

What is this we spy, a real-life Immigration Enthusiast?
Far commoner than xenophobes and racists, though this forum would have use think otherwise. :O


I believe the record indicates that the rioting immigrants were not destroying their property, rather that of others.
Razor sharp, you are. ;) How does looting and pillaging advance the cause of obtaining material riches from the perspective of the immigrant? It doesn't and it in fact damages it, ergo it is not the motivation for such acts. My explanation is the only plausible one in this thread.

That being the case, it would seem that the greatest good for the greatest number of Canadians would come from admitting as many Chinamen as can be enticed to turn up. That should be quite simple to arrange, since there is for all practical purposes an almost inexhaustible supply. If that doesn't do the trick, then there are always lots and lots of Indians in the wings.
The more the merrier, in the same manner as hordes of Slavs and Nordics populated the west a hundred years ago. You, like most people here, confuse race with culture and identity.

Not as bizarre as it might appear. In a number of liberal democracies it is an offence not to cast a vote in a national election. Belgium and Australia come to mind.
But not in France, which is what's under discussion. Moreover, take away the Australian right to vote and you'll cause a din louder than all the howls ever uttered against compulsory voting.

[Fade the Butcher]

Of course, Canada is consistently ranked as one of the best places on earth to inhabit.

I totally agree. Canada is certainly one of the best places on earth for humans to graze.

Whether it be the minor literary masterpieces of of W.O. Mitchell, Wallace Stegner, Al Purdy or Guy Vanderhaeghe

Move over Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe. Make way for the stupendous literary accomplishments of liberal democracy in Canada!

. . . or the discovery of insulin and now the cure for diabetes with platelet cell transfusions, the invention of peacekeeping and the bereaved Avro Aeronautics programme (the legacy of which engendered the Canadarm), the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Quebec city to Parliament in Ottawa, Canada is at the forefront of most things.

Woah. Canadians pioneered the scientific method, university, corporation and the cathedral (all that essential stuff). I must say I am shocked and awed. :rofl:

We are loved and respected by all the world.

I suppose that is all well and good, but I am still at a loss to figure out what 'world opinion' or 'human rights' has to do with significant accomplishments in the arts and sciences.

It becomes even more impressive when you consider its meagre population of 30 million and its short, 150 year history.

No doubt. Just look at the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Quebec City, not the mosques in Toronto. Like it was built under Trudeau. Multiculturalism in action. As I was taught you Canadians say, Nueudootabootit. ;)

McDonalds is American, by the way. Corrupted, then. :D

I remember how excited I was when I first visited Canada. I was expecting it to be all different from America and what not (you know, foreign), but the first thing I saw when I drove into Winnipeg was a Wendy's. I remember thinking to myself. Hell. Even Atlanta isn't that ugly, Potyondi. :p

[Fade the Butcher]

Unlike, say, the chef-d'oeuvres of Philip Glass and V.S. Naipaul. Save your scapegoats for the more credulous. :p

Canadian cuisine. What's that?

[Fade the Butcher]

Dan,

You haven't met the irrepressible Potyondi?

[Hakluyt]

Immigrants adopted French moral thinking as a cynical ploy to obtain material goods and then burned them out of a sense of... what? You beggar the question. There is no indication that they are trying to pull the temple down around their ears, especially as the merest handful of France 6 million Arab Muslims rioted this past year. This acceptance of Western standards is thorough and unthkinking.
There's nothing cynical about it, and you're right when you say it's unthinking. I'm not opposed to these standards becoming universals, there's no reason to be. But participating on that plane will never be equivalent to being 'of the West' - or 'of France' - that's impossible. It is a lower and incomplete form of identity, and for that reason must be thoroughly opposed by all who care about the social wellbeing of the migrants involved.

Being a Westerner involves only adhering to that which is unique in the West. I don't see why you types don't learn any history, as it would do you some good in conversations like these. A hundred and fifty years ago, the differences between a Parisian and a Pyrenéesian were a thousandfold more pronounced than the differences between the same and an Iranian, this during an antecedent epoch of supposed cultural 'purity' prior to immigrant 'invasion'.
Being a Westerner involves a feeling for the past which is impossible to surrogate. Purity is not the issue. That is something that comes about through inertia and has no value in itself. I don't know what point you're trying to make about differences within the West though, these are still material issues.

France lost its soul during the Third Republic's secularisation, and I don't see you complaining about that.
Try the Revolution, and I complain about that plenty elsewhere :P

In any event, your stymied view of integration is preventing you from making any fair judgements about it. It is not as it is practised in your country (and I assume you are American), a melting pot of no merit or worth. Integration is a cross-pollination, as it were. A Chinaman in Canada learns to play Baroque piano concertos and discuss Enlightenment philosophy at the same time as he offers us his dim sum and invites us to celebrate his new year, whereby we all benefit without losing ourselves. It is an enrichment and it occurs on a daily basis, millions of times all across the world.
I'm in Canada, and fwiw am an ardent support of multiculturalism in public policy, at least as contrasted with other approaches to the problem. At issue however, France is not multicultural, and suffers from the problems of vulgar integrationism unique to it and the USA (though creeping all over the West). It seems we might find some limited common ground as far as that goes. What you're describing is not integration into a common culture though (culture defined as an organic process), and that is precisely the reason why our way of organising diversity is better. Diffusion of select standards, tastes, artistic practices and so on is constant throughout history, without the impetus to merge wholesale.

What a totally bizarre argument. Why do people vote if they are not reconciled to the practice? Who holds a gun to their heads?
They vote because they can. that act in itself in no way indicates satisfaction or discontent with the more subtle aspects of the system itself

Are you suggesting that without direct political power, people would be more content with the present régime than with some measure of control over their fates? You need to think these through a little better.
No, I think they'd be more content with proper and responsive governance

Yes, it's boring. Articles, along with all other sources of reference, are meant to be used as evidence to support a personal thesis. Deferring to the insights of others is a counterfeit of intellectualism.
I don't necessarily agree with all of Baudrillard's position and I don't see that anything in the OP would suggest I was using it to advance a thesis. He's been discussed on this board in the past so I post him for anyone who may be interested.

[Donny the Punk]

I totally agree. Canada is certainly one of the best places on earth for humans to graze.
As does nearly every human being on earth, and our provender has never tasted so sweet. :p

Move over Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe. Make way for the stupendous literary accomplishments of liberal democracy in Canada!
Your comparisons are irrelevant since all of those were prodigies, rare enough in any place, and you forget that Italy had 500 years to produce Virgil, 1800 to wait for Dante, England 2000 for Shakespeare and Germany over 2000 for Goethe (whose Faust is the least coherent play I've ever read). Canada is a nascent nation and yet puts its talents to good use where and when they are available. What were Breton Celts accomplishing in their first 200 years, I wonder?

Woah. Canadians pioneered the scientific method, university, corporation and the cathedral (all that essential stuff). I must say I am shocked and awed.
Purposely asinine, once again. Aristotle created the Lyceum, but Napoleon created the Lycée, a far superior rendition. Do you think Michelangelo dreamed up David, or was it perhaps based on The Dying Gaul and The Warrior from Riace? Should chemists hang their heads for not having invented Lavoisier's scientific method, even though he believed in a caloric theory of heat? Laughable.

I suppose that is all well and good, but I am still at a loss to figure out what 'world opinion' or 'human rights' has to do with significant accomplishments in the arts and sciences.
They are their own accomplishments, no less significant.

No doubt. Just look at the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Quebec City, not the mosques in Toronto. Like it was built under Trudeau. Multiculturalism in action. As I was taught you Canadians say, Nueudootabootit. ;)
Ah, I see, you would mock Notre-Dame of Quebec for imitating its forbears in Europe, but praise the Hagia Sofia for imitating the Pantheon and St. Costanza. Really, you took 6 years of university to be able to do this? :rofl:

I remember how excited I was when I first visited Canada. I was expecting it to be all different from America and what not (you know, foreign), but the first thing I saw when I drove into Winnipeg was a Wendy's. I remember thinking to myself. Hell. Even Atlanta isn't that ugly, Potyondi. :p
Winnipeg is a gorgeous city, especially the Tuxedo Area, downtown, and the warehouse district.

But, since this has nothing to do with France and you're trying to start some weird debate about liberal democracy I'm not interested in, this'll be my last reply to silly segues.

[Dan Dare]

Far commoner than xenophobes and racists, though this forum would have use think otherwise. :O

When in polite company, as is the present case, I prefer to use the term Immigration Restrictionist. In the absence of any mainstream party ever putting the matter to the test by featuring the I.R. platform in its election manifesto, we will have to rely on your word that I.E.s do indeed form are a larger segment of the electorate in western liberal democracies.

But it’s probably also the case that admirers of Puff Daddy far outnumber those of Mozart; would you also make the claim that that is an accurate representation of the relative worth of each position?

How does looting and pillaging advance the cause of obtaining material riches from the perspective of the immigrant?

Well I think we saw the answer to this in the reaction of the French government to the recent riots. Rather than resorting to draconian measures such as deporting the miscreants, the government sought to buy them off though very large infusions of additional financial aid poured in to the banlieue. There appeared to be little public discussion as to the effectiveness of other large infusions of public funds made in the past for similar purposes.

It’s worth noting that the British government has employed similar tactics in the aftermath of every racial disturbance since WW II.

But for some strange reason they continue. A mystery, it’s.

The more the merrier, in the same manner as hordes of Slavs and Nordics populated the west a hundred years ago. You, like most people here, confuse race with culture and identity.

Be careful what you wish for. And as a friendly note, it might be better to avoid leading with your chin until we become better acquainted.

[Hakluyt]

You, like most people here, confuse race with culture and identity.
Quite the opposite. You seem confident that diversity will be preserved simply through the continued existence of these people, in their visible difference. We (I, at least, and writers like Baudrillard) are concerned with the less tangible loss involved in integration.

[Donny the Punk]

There's nothing cynical about it, and you're right when you say it's unthinking. I'm not opposed to these standards becoming universals, there's no reason to be. But participating on that plane will never be equivalent to being 'of the West' - or 'of France' - that's impossible. It is a lower and incomplete form of identity, and for that reason must be thoroughly opposed by all who care about the social wellbeing of the migrants involved.

Being a Westerner involves a feeling for the past which is impossible to surrogate. Purity is not the issue. That is something that comes about through inertia and has no value in itself.
I consider these to be one point, and am rather well convinced that whatever incompletion of identity extant in immigrant populations is remedied by one generation and participation in public education.

I don't know what point you're trying to make about differences within the West though, these are still material issues.

No, they are precisely immaterial and for that reason extremely important. Contrast Emile Zola with Louis Veuillot during the time of Lourdais pilgrimages. That represents a greater fracture within a society than exists today in France.

Try the Revolution, and I complain about that plenty elsewhere :P
What, not a fan of holy madness? :o

I'm in Canada, and fwiw am an ardent support of multiculturalism in public policy, at least as contrasted with other approaches to the problem. At issue however, France is not multicultural, and suffers from the problems of vulgar integrationism unique to it and the USA (though creeping all over the West). It seems we might find some limited common ground as far as that goes. What you're describing is not integration into a common culture though (culture defined as an organic process), and that is precisely the reason why our way of organising diversity is better. Diffusion of select standards, tastes, artistic practices and so on is constant throughout history, without the impetus to merge wholesale.
Agreed, though when solutions for this problem exist and clearly succeed, France and others have no reasons not to adopt them.


They vote because they can. that act in itself in no way indicates satisfaction or discontent with the more subtle aspects of the system itself

'The system' is largely bureaucratic and has little to do with referendums.

No, I think they'd be more content with proper and responsive governance

Men have never had proper and responsive governance, though today they can enforce some measure of accountability and influence decisions.

[Donny the Punk]

Quite the opposite. You seem confident that diversity will be preserved simply through the continued existence of these people, in their visible difference.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I have no more care for the homogeneous racial makeups of Scotland or Nigeria than I do for the variegated composition of a place like Canada. Visibility is the least of my concerns; I'm not one of those who would insist that racial minorities and women be present in companies and governments for its own sake, rather than for the qualitative merit individuals within those groups have on offer.

We (I, at least, and writers like Baudrillard) are concerned with the less tangible loss involved in integration.
Such as?

[Donny the Punk]

When in polite company, as is the present case, I prefer to use the term Immigration Restrictionist. In the absence of any mainstream party ever putting the matter to the test by featuring the I.R. platform in its election manifesto, we will have to rely on your word that I.E.s do indeed form are a larger segment of the electorate in western liberal democracies.

I believe that its truth is spoken for empirically.

But it’s probably also the case that admirers of Puff Daddy far outnumber those of Mozart; would you also make the claim that that is an accurate representation of the relative worth of each position?
You are equivocating aesthetics with morals, so this is no point.

Well I think we saw the answer to this in the reaction of the French government to the recent riots. Rather than resorting to draconian measures such as deporting the miscreants, the government sought to buy them off though very large infusions of additional financial aid poured in to the banlieue. There appeared to be little public discussion as to the effectiveness of other large infusions of public funds made in the past for similar purposes.

It’s worth noting that the British government has employed similar tactics in the aftermath of every racial disturbance since WW II.

But for some strange reason they continue. A mystery, it’s.
It depends on how cynical you want to be about it. These rioters, I suspect, were looking for a fair cop. No one is going to be buying them sedans and nike shoes, but the government will make efforts to provide better access to basic and essential human needs, for example, repairing or helping immigrants move from appartements étrangers, in which at least three dozen perished in Paris before the riots due to unsafe living conditions.

Be careful what you wish for. And as a friendly note, it might be better to avoid leading with your chin until we become better acquainted.
If by careful, you mean paranoid, I prefer my way. And if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[Fade the Butcher]

As does nearly every human being on earth, and our provender has never tasted so sweet. :p

I agree. Everyman would be hard pressed to find better pastures than those that exist in Canada. In Canada, Everyman can feed at his trough and grow fat, stupid, lazy, and happy. He has the right to consume potato chips, cheese doodles, and virtually unlimited quantities of soda. There is always gay porn and hockey to watch on television. In Canada, Everyman is free to roam about his pasture where he is the equal of every other Everyman in his Everydayness. Such a life, after all, is the most noble and the highest that Everyman can ever hope to aspire to.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/graphics/photos/sep04/k11431-1i.jpg

Your comparisons are irrelevant since all of those were prodigies, rare enough in any place, and you forget that Italy had 500 years to produce Virgil, 1800 to wait for Dante, England 2000 for Shakespeare and Germany over 2000 for Goethe (whose Faust is the least coherent play I've ever read).

How so? Am I wrong in suggesting here that the bulk of European significant accomplishments in the arts and sciences have not been made in liberal democracies?

Canada is a nascent nation and yet puts its talents to good use where and when they are available. What were Breton Celts accomplishing in their first 200 years, I wonder?

I'm not seeing here how Western culture = Liberalism or how science = liberal democracy + respect for human rights. Canada is hardly notable for its accomplishments in the arts. Neither is America for that matter.

Purposely asinine, once again.

Hardly.

Aristotle created the Lyceum, but Napoleon created the Lycée, a far superior rendition.

I was under the impression that prepatory schools had existed in Europe centuries before Napoleon was ever born. The same could be said of the university.

Do you think Michelangelo dreamed up David, or was it perhaps based on The Dying Gaul and The Warrior from Riace?

Don't get me wrong. I would hardly be one to argue that significant accomplishments in the arts are made by great creative individual genuises in a vacuum totally in their own right.

Should chemists hang their heads for not having invented Lavoisier's scientific method, even though he believed in a caloric theory of heat? Laughable.

No, I am just saying they should acknowledge the social and historical context they are immersed in that made such accomplishments possible in the first place.

They are their own accomplishments, no less significant.

This doesn't seem to follow.

Ah, I see, you would mock Notre-Dame of Quebec for imitating its forbears in Europe, but praise the Hagia Sofia for imitating the Pantheon and St. Costanza.

I was hardly mocking the Cathedral Notre-Dame of Quebec. I would say that it is a beautiful building. Wouldn't you? BTW, who built the Cathedral Notre-Dame of Quebec and when did they build it?

Really, you took 6 years of university to be able to do this?

Going on seven, actually. :|

Winnipeg is a gorgeous city, especially the Tuxedo Area, downtown, and the warehouse district.

*wince*

Gorgeous? Winnipeg? I suppose this would include all the Indian bums and crackheads wandering around downtown (one of whom, I'm guessing, attempting to steal my rental car). :p

But, since this has nothing to do with France and you're trying to start some weird debate about liberal democracy I'm not interested in, this'll be my last reply to silly segues.

K'Thanks. I just wanted to know what liberal democracy (and human rights) had to do with significant accomplishments in the arts and sciences.

[sainte-marthe]

Canada is hardly notable for its accomplishments in the arts. Neither is America for that matter.



Notable relative to what?

[Donny the Punk]

Take it to another thread, Fade, if you must.

[Fade the Butcher]

Notable relative to what?

Significant accomplishments made by Europeans in the arts and sciences.

[Fade the Butcher]

Take it to another thread, Fade, if you must.

You're right. This thread is going off-topic.

[Dan Dare]

I believe that its truth is spoken for empirically.

It being what?

You are equivocating aesthetics with morals, so this is no point.
The demographic transformation that is turning once-great cities like London, Paris (and Toronto) into third-world pestholes is a matter of both morals and aesthetics.
It depends on how cynical you want to be about it. These rioters, I suspect, were looking for a fair cop. No one is going to be buying them sedans and nike shoes, but the government will make efforts to provide better access to basic and essential human needs, for example, repairing or helping immigrants move from appartements étrangers, in which at least three dozen perished in Paris before the riots due to unsafe living conditions.
If memory serves the epicentre of rioting was far from central Paris where the apartments you mention were located. I don’t recall any instance of the rioters, who were predominantly of North African descent, professing solidarity with their sub-Saharan brothers (who were predominanatly the dwellers of the aforesaid apartments) as a motivation for their activities. Can you cite a source that substantiates your assertion?
If by careful, you mean paranoid, I prefer my way. And if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

So I take it then you’re quite comfortable to be known around here as a nigger-loving kike-a-like who takes up the arse?

[Donny the Punk]

It being what?
People's acceptance of multiculturalism and immigration.

The demographic transformation that is turning once-great cities like London, Paris (and Toronto) into third-world pestholes is a matter of both morals and aesthetics.
Toronto always has been and always will be a pesthole, least of all for its immigrant population. :D Was it London that was so great in the thrall of royal despotism, the grip of the plague, with people tossing their shit and piss out the windows into the street? When the city was lit by candles and traversed on horseback, when women were chattel and urban modernity was paid for with the sweat and blood of feudal peons who abutted the land-owning gentry with hardly a middle class between? You chase after a golden age that never existed.

If memory serves the epicentre of rioting was far from central Paris where the apartments you mention were located. I don’t recall any instance of the rioters, who were predominantly of North African descent, professing solidarity with their sub-Saharan brothers (who were predominanatly the dwellers of the aforesaid apartments) as a motivation for their activities. Can you cite a source that substantiates your assertion?
They are all reflexions of an identical condition. Arabs in the banlieues face living conditions just as bad as the inner-city dwellers. It would not take much effort to re-industrialise and revitalise some of the shabbier environs of Paris such as Montparnasse and there build affordable and comfortable high-rise housing to take the pressure off both groups as well as promoting participation within the wider society to which they belong instead of segregating them.


So I take it then you’re quite comfortable to be known around here as a nigger-loving kike-a-like who takes up the arse?
It wouldn't be the first time, though I wonder if you kiss your mother with that mouth.

[sainte-marthe]

Significant accomplishments made by Europeans in the arts and sciences.


(speaking mostly of arts here, I am not very qualified to comment about the many of the theoretical aspects or merits of science) What qualifies as significant? A small handful of the very best Europeans? Maybe so, but being so small in number, we are a bit of a loss to explain why Europe has so few of them if the assumption is that Europe supposedly produces geniuses with such facility. It is one thing to say that the USA did not produce Beethoven, Shakespeare or Michelangelo, but it is quite different to say it has produced nothing of value. But the US did not exist when much of this happened, and in the time since it has existed, the USA is probably on a comparable level, or close to it, with most of the more notable individual countries in Europe.

Providing a list or series of lists comes close to being pedantic, though.

[Dan Dare]

(speaking mostly of arts here, I am not very qualified to comment about the many of the theoretical aspects or merits of science) What qualifies as significant? A small handful of the very best Europeans? Maybe so, but being so small in number, we are a bit of a loss to explain why Europe has so few of them if the assumption is that Europe supposedly produces geniuses with such facility. It is one thing to say that the USA did not produce Beethoven, Shakespeare or Michelangelo, but it is quite different to say it has produced nothing of value. But the US did not exist when much of this happened, and in the time since it has existed, the USA is probably on a comparable level, or close to it, with most of the more notable individual countries in Europe.

Providing a list or series of lists comes close to being pedantic, though.

S-M: are you familar with the Charles Murray Challenge?

Murray as you probably know is the author of Human Accomplishment, the List of Lists for scientific and cultural achievement through 1950.

Murray's challenge calls for you to identify an artistic achievement produced since 1950 of such merit that it will be viewed with the same critical approval 200 years from now.

Try it, it's harder than it appears.

[Fade the Butcher]

What qualifies as significant? A small handful of the very best Europeans?

See Charles Murray's discussion of this in Human Accomplishment.

Maybe so, but being so small in number, we are a bit of a loss to explain why Europe has so few of them if the assumption is that Europe supposedly produces geniuses with such facility.

That is not the assumption being made here, as most European nations today, like Canada and America, are also liberal democracies. What is in dispute here is whether or not liberal democracy (as opposed to other forms of sociopolitical organization) lends itself to significant accomplishments in the arts. Seeing how the decline of significant accomplishments in the arts has coincided with the rise of liberal democracy, I would be hard pressed to see how any causal connection could be made between the two.

It is one thing to say that the USA did not produce Beethoven, Shakespeare or Michelangelo, but it is quite different to say it has produced nothing of value.

I'm not saying the U.S. hasn't produced any artistic forms in its own right: jazz, rock and roll, R&B, rock and roll, hip hop and so on come to mind here. I don't know if I would chalk this up as progress, though. It seems more like a decline to me.

But the US did not exist when much of this happened, and n the time since it has existed, the USA is probably on a comparable level, or close to it, with most of the more notable individual countries in Europe.

I disagree. The United States and Canada are the heirs of extraordinary rich European traditions in the arts. America took the European musical tradition and made a P. Diddy out of it. The philosophical heirs of Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas give the world John Dewey, Martha Nussbaum, and Andrea Dworkin. Medieval Europeans threw up Gothic Cathedrals, but modern Americans throw up a KFC on every corner.

[Dan Dare]

People's acceptance of multiculturalism and immigration...


To Be Continued. :D

It wouldn't be the first time, though I wonder if you kiss your mother with that mouth.

Now that we're quits we can shelve this silly game.

There is more than enough empty sloganeering to go around with Oberon on the scene.

[sainte-marthe]

Seeing how the decline of significant accomplishments in the arts has coincided with the rise of liberal democracy, I would be hard pressed to see how any causal connection could be made between the two.



Is there a direct cause shown to bring about artistic achievement? I haven't seen a case made for liberal democracy causing or preventing it, in the sense that it has been shown to create either.

I'm not saying the U.S. hasn't produced any artistic forms in its own right: jazz, rock and roll, R&B, rock and roll, hip hop and so on come to mind here. I don't know if I would chalk this up as progress, though. It seems more like a decline to me.





I would mention landscape painting and the short story as forms where Americans have shown originality and innovation. Some might a few of the 19th C. realist painters. While the form of the novel did not originate in the USA (and it not originate in Russia either, yet Russian novels are very often suggested as the very best in the form, where the form comes from is not always indicitave of superior quality), the American novel is generally not dismissed so cavaliery on either side of the Atlantic.

I disagree. The United States and Canada are the heirs of extraordinary rich European traditions in the arts. America took the European musical tradition and made a P. Diddy out of it. The philosophical heirs of Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas give the world John Dewey, Martha Nussbaum, and Andrea Dworkin. Medieval Europeans threw up Gothic Cathedrals, but modern Americans throw up a KFC on every corner.

I think you're overlooking any Americans who created anything not sordid or in questionable taste.

Americans also went through periods which revived that sort of architecture.

Are Europeans putting up Gothic Cathedrals? They went through a period when they themselves looked on medieval architecture unfavorably, including Vasari, who is thought of as the first significant art historian, and described it as "monstrous and barbarous".

[Fade the Butcher]

Is there a direct cause shown to bring about artistic achievement?

Sure. I would say that significant accomplishments in the arts rest upon a matrix of assumptions and preconditions, as does artistic decline. Some ideas inspire great art (i.e., Platonic idealism). Some ideas inspire mediocore art (i.e., utilitarianism).

I haven't seen a case made for liberal democracy causing or preventing it, in the sense that it has been shown to create either.

I would say that liberal democracy has the effect of creating a social structure that stiffles and inhibits significant artistic accomplishment. In other words, such a political form rests upon certain assumptions (utilitarianism and expressionism, especially) that lend themselves to certain types of artistic forms as opposed to others, as do the various religions like Christianity and Islam.

I would mention landscape painting and the short story as forms where Americans have shown originality and innovation. Some might a few of the 19th C. realist painters. While the form of the novel did not originate in the USA (and it not originate in Russia either, yet Russian novels are very often suggested as the very best in the form, where the form comes from is not always indicitave of superior quality), the American novel is generally not dismissed so cavaliery on either side of the Atlantic/I think you're overlooking any Americans who created anything not sordid or in questionable taste.

There are certainly Americans who have made accomplishments that are not sordid and questionable in taste, but such accomplishments are infinitely outnumbered by the avalanche of those that are, as the tastes and preferences of the masses are elevated in America to such an unusual degree because of the influence of utilitarianism in American culture.

Americans also went through periods which revived that sort of architecture.

You mean neoclassical architecture, right?

Are Europeans putting up Gothic Cathedrals?

Today? Not to my knowledge. I'm not comparing Americans to Europeans, though. We are discussing the relationship between significant accomplishment in the arts and liberal democracy. America and Canada are relevant in so far as they are liberal democracies.

They went through a period when they themselves looked on medieval architecture unfavorably, including Vasari, who is thought of as the first significant art historian, and described it as "monstrous and barbarous".

See above.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Fade: if you are aware of the story of how the Colosseum in Rome became such a stripped ruin, surely you'll see that the present day societies at times do a better job in preserving the heritage than Medieval societies did.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade: if you are aware of the story of how the Colosseum in Rome became such a stripped ruin, surely you'll see that the present day societies at times do a better job in preserving the heritage than Medieval societies did.

It was precisely this example, believe it or not, that I had in mind when I posted about American music earlier this thread. :p

[Jimbo Gomez]

Well surely you'll agree with me then that things are not as black-white as you seem to depict them here. I don't think anyone bothered restoring old buildings prior to the late 18th century.

[Fade the Butcher]

Well surely you'll agree with me then that things are not as black-white as you seem to depict them here. I don't think anyone bothered restoring old buildings prior to the late 18th century.

I think you are interpreting my argument as a black/white contrast when that is not what I am getting at.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

We hardly restore much recent ruins either. Things tend to get a valor with time.

[sainte-marthe]

Sure. I would say that significant accomplishments in the arts rest upon a matrix of assumptions and preconditions, as does artistic decline. Some ideas inspire great art (i.e., Platonic idealism). Some ideas inspire mediocore art (i.e., utilitarianism).



How does this account for bad art in non-democratic or non-utilitarianism societies?

There is also some art critical of those aspects you don't like, Edward Hopper might be an example, his work studies the emptiness and superficiality of modern living and disatisfaction with it. It is not Michelangelo, but I think it has merit. Not all styles, forms and motifs go together well. Not all art can be classical statuary, in other words.

http://americanart.si.edu/collections/exhibits/hopper/images/p22-hawks_1b.jpg

http://www.posterunlimited.com/imagebase/APP/jpgs/MFA118.jpg

http://www.hermitary.com/archives/hopper_automat.jpg

http://www.loustal.nl/images/hopper2.jpg


You mean neoclassical architecture, right?

Gothic Revival was fashionable in the 1800s and early 1900s. This covered everything from famous buildings, to small town churches.


Today? Not to my knowledge. I'm not comparing Americans to Europeans, though. We are discussing the relationship between significant accomplishment in the arts and liberal democracy. America and Canada are relevant in so far as they are liberal democracies.


That is understandable but I fear you're significantly underestimating the quality of a lot things Americans, Canadians, and others have produced, and especially focusing on the worst of the time since the 2nd half of the 20th century. The US arguably had the world's best literature for a time in the earlier years of the century, the art and writing from the 1800s is really not so bad on the whole.

[Donny the Punk]

S-M: are you familar with the Charles Murray Challenge?

Murray as you probably know is the author of Human Accomplishment, the List of Lists for scientific and cultural achievement through 1950.

Murray's challenge calls for you to identify an artistic achievement produced since 1950 of such merit that it will be viewed with the same critical approval 200 years from now.

Try it, it's harder than it appears.
Naipaul, A Bend in the River. Golding, The Inheritors. Miller, The Crucible. Braudel, The Structures of Everyday Life. Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Gulag Archipelago, Cancer Ward.

Where's my money? Murray's top-10-list pablum certainly won't be remembered 15 years from now. :p

[sainte-marthe]

S-M: are you familar with the Charles Murray Challenge?

Murray as you probably know is the author of Human Accomplishment, the List of Lists for scientific and cultural achievement through 1950.

Murray's challenge calls for you to identify an artistic achievement produced since 1950 of such merit that it will be viewed with the same critical approval 200 years from now.

Try it, it's harder than it appears.

I'd have to give that some thought, the first thoughts that come suggest the minor or later work of those who worked mostly before 1950. Do latter-day Picasso, Faulkner, and so on count? Orwell narrowly missed the deadline. Camus was at his peak around that time, him, perhaps? When did Gide die? Did he make it to the 1950s?


Borges should make it.

Nabokov

Maybe Greene

Possibly Waugh

Herman Hesse, I think, lived past the 1950s




Naipaul, A Bend in the River

Maybe.


Miller, The Crucible
Probably not.


Braudel, The Structures of Everyday Life.

Unsure.

Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Gulag Archipelago, Cancer Ward

Maybe. Dostoyevsky's House of the Dead might overshadow those works on similar themes.

Solhenitsyn has my vote for a post-1950 novelist worth reading.


Where's my money? Murray's top-10-list pablum certainly won't be remembered 15 years from now.

It is somewhat useful as a catalogue, I couldn't bring myself to read the entire thing, but he makes a strong case. As for litanies of literature, Bloom's Western Canon services its purpose, though it is inclusive enough at times to name almost any author of any note.

[Donny the Punk]

It has no case to present. A third of the book is devoted to cross-indexing encyclopediae, the remainder to defending himself against charges of racism/sexism/eurocentrism/whatnot.

My God, you mean Michelango was the most gifted artist and Shakespeare the most gifted author of all time? That they were both male and European? Heavens, whatever would we do without such an assessment. He and Fade must share bunks.

[sainte-marthe]

It has no case to present.


Didn't it have a broad thesis that the most important advances occured in a roughly pentagonal area covering Southern England, Northern France, Germany, and Northern Italy?

[Donny the Punk]

No, he does include maps of dispersion but never comments on them in terms of significance except with regards to 'Europe' in general.

[Hakluyt]

The case or underlying theme of the book is the post-industrial decline in 'excellence' and accomplishment in general, and that is presented convincingly. His regression analyses are also very thorough and one compares directly achievements under Republics, Absotute monarchies, Parliamentary monarchies, totalitarian governments and Liberal democracies (which he ranked in that order).

[Donny the Punk]

How can you possibly say that he presents that idea convincingly when he demurs before all post-1950 achievement? He devotes one (1) chapter to a gross simplification of Aristotle's concept of the true, the beautiful, and the good as prime movers in art and science without qualifying any of them, save for a few hypothetical vagaries about the role of Christianity whose causal links he doesn't dare try to prove for fear of inadequacy.

[sugartits]

My God, you mean Michelango was the most gifted artist and Shakespeare the most gifted author of all time? That they were both male and European? Heavens, whatever would we do without such an assessment.

Funny how things work out.

Haven't read the book but Charles Murray sounds like no real challenge at all. Looking back a mere 50 odd years!!!

As if the contemporaries of Shakespeare would have known that he would be regarded as a great literary figure 200, 400 years after his death. Looking into the past is not fortune telling, no matter how esoteric your interpretation of history. Why are some artists remembered and others not? Is it completely a result of their creativity and talent?

Ozymandias

[O'Zebedee]

...

You missed Golding.

Potyondi - what about Darkness Visible?

[Donny the Punk]

I've never read it, so I can't rightly say.

[Hakluyt]

How can you possibly say that he presents that idea convincingly when he demurs before all post-1950 achievement? He devotes one (1) chapter to a gross simplification of Aristotle's concept of the true, the beautiful, and the good as prime movers in art and science without qualifying any of them, save for a few hypothetical vagaries about the role of Christianity whose causal links he doesn't dare try to prove for fear of inadequacy.
I'll take a look through it tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure he had at least a few thigns to say about Christianity. Aristotle lends much to his thesis but he's not key. Post-industrial, meaning that which followed the industrial revolution, is about 1850 onward btw.

[Donny the Punk]

Back on topic?

[Hakluyt]

I consider these to be one point, and am rather well convinced that whatever incompletion of identity extant in immigrant populations is remedied by one generation and participation in public education.
Until they ask themselves 'Who am I and where do I come from?' Yes, the answer may often come as simply 'Canada'. But it's a shallow and unhistorical identification. There's more to life than citizenship papers and gradeschool education. This hope is also made completely impractical under the multicultural policy you seem to defend.

No, they are precisely immaterial and for that reason extremely important. Contrast Emile Zola with Louis Veuillot during the time of Lourdais pilgrimages. That represents a greater fracture within a society than exists today in France.
Fractures of an entirely different sort. See again what I said earlier about homogeneity.

What, not a fan of holy madness?
That may have been inevitable in France. But the folly I take issue with was very consciously engineered - the replacement of organic culture with State Culture. This is the case in France, the USA, here in Canada within the period between the 60's and 80's, and appears ripe to proceed in Britain.

Agreed, though when solutions for this problem exist and clearly succeed, France and others have no reasons not to adopt them.
Absolutely, I agree, and France should embark on a program of multiculturalism immediately (though there is no need for things like affirmative action to go along with it, which is what much of the left seem to have their sights on). The issue of whether migration should be taking place at all however, if that is what you were alluding to, is a separate one.

'The system' is largely bureaucratic and has little to do with referendums.
Precisely the point...

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I have no more care for the homogeneous racial makeups of Scotland or Nigeria than I do for the variegated composition of a place like Canada. Visibility is the least of my concerns; I'm not one of those who would insist that racial minorities and women be present in companies and governments for its own sake, rather than for the qualitative merit individuals within those groups have on offer.
One either values diversity or they don't. You may not support the principles of total integrationism as they exist in France or the USA, but your rationale for cultural integration is just as much a rejection of organic diversity. The way you initially brought out the problem of homogeneity (the 'homogenisers' as you put it) suggests to me you could only be talking about ethnicity, and therefore if you are in fact defending diversity at all it is in the name of a society marked by ethnic difference alone, not culture. This is exactly the kind of shortsighted 'diversity' Americans and French pride themselves on. So I would question where the essential difference lies between your views and theirs. I withdraw that if my premise re: ethnicity is mistaken though.

Such as?
History, foundations, kinship dynamics

[Dan Dare]

...I consider these to be one point, and am rather well convinced that whatever incompletion of identity extant in immigrant populations is remedied by one generation and participation in public education.

The London tube bombers were second and third-generation immigrants who were, from all accounts, completely integrated, and "as British as we are" according to neighbours interviewed on the telly.

[Donny the Punk]

Until they ask themselves 'Who am I and where do I come from?' Yes, the answer may often come as simply 'Canada'. But it's a shallow and unhistorical identification.
Then you would have us create no new histories, condemned to the perdition of evoking only dreams and legends to describe ourselves.

There's more to life than citizenship papers and gradeschool education. This hope is also made completely impractical under multicultural policy you seem to defend.
My identification lies very strongly with the prairies in which I grew up, not the Eastern Europe from which my forebears emerged. This is the ineluctable result of immigration, and so it's not a concern that people will fail to see one another as brothers, regardless of origins. And yet I cook kielbasa, pierogies and holopchi every Easter and Christmas, at which time I go to Ukrainian Catholic church where I was baptised. These are neither irreconcible contrasts, nor impractical in any sense.


Fractures of an entirely different sort. See again what I said earlier about homogeneity.
You said: "Who are the homogenisers, those seeking to preserve established identities and organise society to accord with their dignity, or those after some impossible ideal of 'integration'? A society ethnically diverse but without a soul, forced into a myopic pseudo-culture of the lowest common denominator, is far more 'homogenised' than one ethnically pure but culturally authentic." This arose from what I pointed out as a misunderstanding and misapplication of integration and multiculturalism which I had since assumed we agreed upon. Homogenisers are those in your first example: "those seeking to preserve established identities and organise society to accord with their dignity," for they will acknowledge no evolution and brook no difference. In that case, the battles between Naturalists and Catholic pilgrims in 19th century France is a very precise instance of what is under discussion in the article. I think you ought to spend more time responding to the specific historical event in comparison to the situation today.


That may have been inevitable in France. But the folly I take issue with was very consciously engineered - the replacement of organic culture with State Culture. This is the case in France, the USA, here in Canada within the period between the 60's and 80's, and appears ripe to proceed in Britain.
As Fade would ask, how was liberalism born? It was a natural response to prevailing conditions and was helped along by antecedent intellectual movements; hardly anything conscious about it. This is why I draw my line at the excesses of Jules Ferry and not before.


Absolutely, I agree, and France should embark on a program of multiculturalism immediately (though there is no need for things like affirmative action to go along with it, which is what much of the left seem to have their sights on). The issue of whether migration should be taking place at all however, if that is what you were alluding to, is a separate one.
Good, no more discussion on this is required.


Precisely the point...
You've lost your point somewhere. :p Referendums are separate from approval/disapproval of 'the system', especially as they allow one to express that opinion in a powerful manner.


One either values diversity or they don't. You may not support the principles of total integrationism as they exist in France or the USA, but your rationale for cultural integration is just as much a rejection of organic diversity. The way you initially brought out the problem of homogeneity (the 'homogenisers' as you put it) suggests to me you could only be talking about ethnicity, and therefore if you are in fact defending diversity at all it is in the name of a society marked by ethnic difference alone, not culture. This is exactly the kind of shortsighted 'diversity' Americans and French pride themselves on. So I would question where the essential difference your views and theirs. I withdraw that if my premise re: ethnicity is mistaken though.
Mistaken on most counts. Diversity is valued for its own sake by simpletons and politicians. It ought to be valued for what it offers. I do not champion cultural integration, but rather cultural cross-pollination. And I am not discussing ethnicity - it is a completely irrelevant factor as far as I am concerned.


History, foundations, kinship dynamics
One always forgets that history, foundations and dynamics are created. The acquisition of the new always necessitates to some extent the abandonment of the old. Did it not, we would all be taught to pine for the medicine of Hippocrates and the satire of Juvenal instead of P.G. Wodehouse and Florence Nightingale, a very mislead aspiration.

[Donny the Punk]

The London tube bombers were second and third-generation immigrants who were, from all accounts, completely integrated, and "as British as we are" according to neighbours interviewed on the telly.
Even more so Guy Fawkes, a hundreth generation resident who was, from all accounts, completely integrated, and "as British as we are" according to neighbours. Would you ban Catholics from entering England? The problem is fanaticism and naught else, and that is thankfully rare.

[Dan Dare]

Blimey, dredging the bottom with that one aren't you Potty?

You'll need to come up with something more original than that.

[Dan Dare]

...Mistaken on most counts. Diversity is valued for its own sake by simpletons and politicians. It ought to be valued for what it offers. I do not champion cultural integration, but rather cultural cross-pollination. And I am not discussing ethnicity - it is a completely irrelevant factor as far as I am concerned.

In an earlier post you offered the example of a Chinaman in Canada who learns to play Baroque piano concertos and discuss Enlightenment philosophy at the same time as he offers us his dim sum and invites us to celebrate his new year.

If I understood the point correctly, this was intended as an example of the type of cultural cross-pollination that you value. This does however appear to be a little, well, asymmetrical in terms of the benefits that accrue to each side in the transaction.

Can you suggest something a little more compelling for our consideration? Particularly since you appear to be in favour of Canada admitting as many Chinamen as wish to present themselves.

[sainte-marthe]

A couple of Canadian painters

http://www.gallery2000.ca/bio.php?id=234

http://www.paulkane.ca/php/index.php

Frederick Verner

http://www.nald.ca/clr/blueink/page7.JPG

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/imagealta/verner.jpg


Paul Kane
http://www.cinefocus.com/images/image_base/36_large.jpg

http://www.cinefocus.com/images/image_base/fort_large.jpg

[Dan Dare]

Do they come in sofa-size?:D

[sainte-marthe]

Do I detect some ant-Canadism?

[Fade the Butcher]

How does this account for bad art in non-democratic or non-utilitarianism societies?

I haven't argued that art in non-democratic societies is absolutely good whereas art in democratic societies is absolutely bad. On the contrary, I have argued that there is a matrix of factors that lend themselves to good art just as there is another set of factors that does not. Utilitarianism is especially notorious in this respect. If you take seriously the notion that great art is whatever satisfies the greatest number of people, then art is instantly reduced to the tastes of the uncultivated masses. Expressionism is another example of such a degenerate trend in art.

That is understandable but I fear you're significantly underestimating the quality of a lot things Americans, Canadians, and others have produced, and especially focusing on the worst of the time since the 2nd half of the 20th century.

This is because there were tendencies that are full blown and actualized in late twentieth century America that were only potential in, say, early nineteenth century America and Britain. In earlier years, these liberal tendencies were moderated somewhat by other aspects of the American identity.

The US arguably had the world's best literature for a time in the earlier years of the century, the art and writing from the 1800s is really not so bad on the whole.

George Babbitt has been something of an inspiration to me. :)

[sainte-marthe]

That's actually quite a funny book.

[Fade the Butcher]

Do I detect some ant-Canadism?

I think Canada is a joke, personally. Canada is the black hole of the world: an empty state with no real culture, nation, ethnos, traditions of its own that sucks in garbage from throughout the world (i.e., Chinamen here, Indians there, some Greeks over here) to compensate for its lack of identity. Canada is decorated with assorted human kitsch bought at an immigration yard sale. It substitutes the poverty of its own cuisine with the cuisine of other nations. Few people are fooled into believing that Canada has a rich and vibrant culture of its own, though. Oh yeah, Canada gave the world Celine Dion. It should be right up there amongst the world's greatest nations. Canada is a social experiment gone horribly wrong.
I still think my analogy to cattle was rather apt. By what standard is Canada one of the best places in the world to live? Canadians are fat, stupid, happy, and live long lives. I agree. They are free to move around Canada, like one big pasture, one big empty desolate landscape, to graze. The state, like a barbed wire fence, is nothing more than an arbitrary boundry that doesn't demark anything real or substantial. Every Canadian is the equal of every other in his mediocrity and everydayness, like a cow chewing grass, staring at you with that empty, smiling face.

I feel sorry for Canadians. This isn't to say that America is any better. It's not. There is a similar nullity at the heart of American life. It shows how seriously Americans and Canadians take their identity (or better yet, lack thereof) when they let just about anyone move into their countries. Oh? So you are new here? Make yourself at home. This isn't our home. We also just live here.

[Donny the Punk]

In an earlier post you offered the example of a Chinaman in Canada who learns to play Baroque piano concertos and discuss Enlightenment philosophy at the same time as he offers us his dim sum and invites us to celebrate his new year.

If I understood the point correctly, this was intended as an example of the type of cultural cross-pollination that you value. This does however appear to be a little, well, asymmetrical in terms of the benefits that accrue to each side in the transaction.

Can you suggest something a little more compelling for our consideration? Particularly since you appear to be in favour of Canada admitting as many Chinamen as wish to present themselves.
I consider that to be a perfectly compelling and satisfying exchange, especially since it's a non-zero sum game, so both sides benefit and neither lose. If we must compare, for any silly reason, let us do so between Asia and Europe, since neither of the Occidental benefits I mentioned above are nation-specific. We benefit thereby from the philosophy of Mencius, Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi, the practise of martial arts, the literature of Cao Xuequin and Murasaki Shikibu, the art of bonsai and sculpted garden pavilions or the more recent painted masterpieces of Dao Hai Phong and Yang Shan-Hen, still the finest porcelain handicraft on earth, a thousand varieties of tea, festivals, kites, fashion (and in case you haven't been paying attention to women lately, a fair portion of the clothes they wear today and consider elegant or chic are derived from Asian designs, especially dresses). And, of course, there is the major aesthetic advantage of not having to look at a bunch of grossly obese people. :D There must be thousands more, of which not even I am aware.

But your problem thus far is to not view these people as individuals who may in their own right contribute what is far more valuable. In my previous example, I was alluding somewhat to my roommate, who practises both of the aforementioned Western activities, in addition to possessing a degree in computer science and a hobby of advancing his own theories about Deep Grammar and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. He's one of the most literate people I know, writes regularly for the university newspaper and a city-wide weekly, volunteers to play piano for the school choir and has twice been to the World Championships of debate. His father founded Novatel wireless in the late '70s and was part of the team that invented the first cellular phone. Today he continues his work at the head of another mobile communication business he's founded that works out of both Hong Kong and Calgary. His mother spends her time volunteering at her other son's jr. high school and he in turn, while too young to have any significant accomplishments to his name, gets straight As and speed skates.

I couldn't care less if people like that crawled out of a hole; they are among the most precious artefacts my country possesses.


Blimey, dredging the bottom with that one aren't you Potty?

You'll need to come up with something more original than that.
I'm not the one beating around the bush. ;)

[Donny the Punk]

Fade equates unlimited opportunity and resources with nihilism. No wonder he never gets anything done. :p

[Dan Dare]

I consider that to be a perfectly compelling and satisfying exchange, especially since it's a non-zero sum game, so both sides benefit and neither lose. If we must compare, for any silly reason, ….
Now, now Potty there’s no need to get your high horse to answer a simple question. I should have thought you only had to refer to the I-Spy Big Book of Immigration Benefits that I’m sure you picked up in your Effnick Studies doctoral programme at the University of Medicine Hat.

For the purposes of the present discussion let’s take Nos. 1 [ethnic restaurants], 4 [colourful dress fabrics], and 7 [exciting new forms of syncopation] as read.

What else ya got?

But your problem thus far is to not view these people as individuals who may in their own right contribute what is far more valuable. In my previous example, I was alluding somewhat to my roommate, ….

OK enough already of the airy persiflage, so what if your roommate is a Nobel Laureate, what about all the other Chinamen you want to bring over under your More is Merrier scheme. Exactly how big a number did you have in mind, and are they going to bring us anything different besides more dim sum and chasing around inside paper dragons?

Bear in mind now we can get Sun Tzu from the local Borders for $ 3.99 tops and Mrs. Dare doesn’t care for any tea other than PG Tips.

I'm not the one beating around the bush.

You could have fooled me but then I’m only a plain-speaking working-class lad from the northern coalfields and haven’t had the benefit of your vast and worldly experience in the Multi-Kulti domain.

[Fade the Butcher]

Dan,

I would also point out that Canada isn't simply importing individuals from the third world. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be much of a problem, as no individual lives indefinitely. The far more important fact that this is a package deal is glossed over and obscured by inane individualism. We aren't just talking about Jamal, but all of the Jamals that will come after him who are ever more numerous. Suppose one such Jamal possesses "skills and education" that will enable him to find a good paying job. So what? That is no guarantee that Jamal's descendents will be of that nature.

[Donny the Punk]

Now, now Potty there’s no need to get your high horse to answer a simple question. I should have thought you only had to refer to the I-Spy Big Book of Immigration Benefits that I’m sure you picked up in your Effnick Studies doctoral programme at the University of Medicine Hat.

For the purposes of the present discussion let’s take Nos. 1 [ethnic restaurants], 4 [colourful dress fabrics], and 7 [exciting new forms of syncopation] as read.

What else ya got?
The examples I listed above are both more than adequate and more than you can seem to handle, so I'll leave you to furnish some content instead of quips. :)

Incidentally, it's a double major in History/Science & Technology at the UofA, and I've never taken a sociology or anthropology course in my life. :P

OK enough already of the airy persiflage, so what if your roommate is a Nobel Laureate, what about all the other Chinamen you want to bring over under your More is Merrier scheme. Exactly how big a number did you have in mind, and are they going to bring us anything different besides more dim sum and chasing around inside paper dragons?

Bear in mind now we can get Sun Tzu from the local Borders for $ 3.99 tops and Mrs. Dare doesn’t care for any tea other than PG Tips.
Again you miss the point about individuals, so this too shall have to go by the wayside until something more meaningful comes along. Mrs. Dare is has every right to care, by the by, because of the prodigality of the so-loathed society she inhabits. But she would never even know if other teas weren't placed at her feet.

Since you seem to be determined to view me as your queer negro-jew, I don't suppose that it would do much good to offer that my country is not a refugee camp and that I expect immigrants to contribute to their new world as fully as possible, not to mention be able to operate capably within it principally through fluent literacy in French or English.


You could have fooled me but then I’m only a plain-speaking working-class lad from the northern coalfields and haven’t had the benefit of your vast and worldly experience in the Multi-Kulti domain.
Save it for Vaudeville, then. :)

[Dan Dare]

Bloody hell Fade I was just working up to get in to the chain migration thing once Potty came back with his new laundry list, now you've gone and spoilt the surprise.:(

[Donny the Punk]

Fade,

I would also point out that there is no guarantee that your offspring (God forbid) won't have club feet, crossed eyes and Asperger's Syndrome. But for some Godforsaken reason, the state of Alabama suffers your presence, even though you are currently only a sponge soaking up your parents' wealth. :p

[Dan Dare]

...Since you seem to be determined to view me as your queer negro-jew, I don't suppose that it would do much good to offer that my country is not a refugee camp and that I expect immigrants to contribute to their new world as fully as possible, not to mention be able to operate capably within it principally through fluent literacy in French or English.


Sounds of furious backpedalling as Potty exits stage left, having jettisoned the More the Merrier manifesto.

[Donny the Punk]

Funny. :p Only your kind could confuse lack of prejudice for lack of standards.

I never backpeddle, and am only furious occasionally. ;) Far more desperate-looking is responding to less than a tenth of at least 5 or 6 posts and even then only with innuendo and aspersions.

[Dan Dare]

Far more desperate-looking is responding to less than a tenth of at least 5 or 6 posts...

Sifting through your posts brings to mind doing the cats' litter-boxes, a weekly chore that Mrs. Dare and I jokingly refer to as 'panning for gold'.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade,

I would also point out that there is no guarantee that your offspring (God forbid) won't have club feet, crossed eyes and Asperger's Syndrome.

Fair point. I never suggested otherwise. That is why it makes more sense to look at group averages than individuals from the standpoint of social policy, as individuals eventually die in any case.

But for some Godforsaken reason, the state of Alabama suffers your presence, even though you are currently only a sponge soaking up your parents' wealth. :p

I take it you heard this crap (amongst other lies) from Eddy. Her information about my personal life is a little out of date, as I neither live in Alabama or off the wealth of my parents. In fact, I just got married. I have a good paying job and a new home where I live alone with my wife. Is Eddy still living off her husband? She has had a lot to say lately about employment since getting her first job ever last September.

[Donny the Punk]

Fair point. I never suggested otherwise. That is why it makes more sense to look at group averages than individuals from the standpoint of social policy, as individuals eventually die in any case.
Quite the opposite; it's nonsensical to consider group averages when discussing immigration policy. Were you not aware that immigrants are considered on a case-by-case basis, not according to their ethnic milieu? A far fairer and more intelligent method than what you propose.

I take it you heard this crap (amongst other lies) from Eddy. Her information about my personal life is a little out of date, as I neither live in Alabama or off the wealth of my parents. In fact, I just got married. I have a good paying job and a new home where I live alone with my wife.
The internet has known for years that you're a Spongefade Squarepants. :p As for your current circumstances, I am ignorant of them all, though I daresay a photograph of the happy day and the new couple's kitchen would mollify my scepticism. :confused:

Is Eddy still living off her husband? She has had a lot to say lately about employment since getting her first job ever last September.
I don't gossip. Ask her if you like.

[Fade the Butcher]

Quite the opposite; it's nonsensical to consider group averages when discussing immigration policy.

I'm not grasping your reasoning here.

Were you not aware that immigrants are considered on a case-by-case basis, not according to their ethnic milieu?

You mean as individuals, right? Wasn't this the policy I was criticizing? I will throw in yet another reason why it is ridiculous. White Englishmen might think of themselves as liberal individualists, but it is a fallacy to assume that group membership is de facto equally irrelevant to nonwhite immigrants from the third world. In fact, such extreme individualism is the exception, not the norm, amongst human populations.

A far fairer and more intelligent method than what you propose.

This is nonresponsive. I would like you explain for us why this is the case. Why does it make more sense for a social planner to look at one individual and the contribution he/she can make to a given nation as opposed to the generations upon generations of descendents that individual could spawn?

The internet has known for years that you're a Spongefade Squarepants. :p As for your current circumstances, I am ignorant of them all, though I daresay a photograph of the happy day and the new couple's kitchen would mollify my scepticism.

I'm not grasping the relevance of my personal life to this conversation, but I am bored so I will respond anyway. If you are suggesting here that my parents paid for my college education, then that is absolutely true. I fully admit that and do not see the slightest reason why I should somehow be ashamed. My grandparents likewise paid for my father's education. I will pay for the college education of my children. As for sharing specific as opposed to general personal information with online acquaintances, I learned my lesson in the case of Eddy.

I don't gossip. Ask her if you like.

We haven't been on speaking terms for several months now. Nevertheless, Eddy still likes to pontificate on my social circumstances as if she was somehow privy to that information.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Lets keep Fade's parents and Eddy's husband out of what has been a good discussion, gents. :)

Keep it above the belt.

[Donny the Punk]

I will throw in yet another reason why it is ridiculous. White Englishmen might think of themselves as liberal individualists, but it is a fallacy to assume that group membership is de facto equally irrelevant to nonwhite immigrants from the third world. In fact, such extreme individualism is the exception, not the norm, amongst human populations.
White Englishmen think of thesmelves as group members as well, I'm sure. But if that is the source of their self-esteem, they have poor characters indeed. Likewise as regards foreigners. We are all individuals, no matter from what culture, and group association is not the same as group identification. Find me the person who will cut his own throat because the group wills it. Fanatics and lunatics, who would not be admitted in any event.

However, this is no kind of evidence against evaluating immigrants on a case-by-case basis. People are not their environments, something you continually fail to grasp in this thread and others.

This is nonresponsive. I would like you explain for us why this is the case. Why does it make more sense for a social planner to look at one individual and the contribution he/she can make to a given nation as opposed to the generations upon generations of descendents that individual could spawn?
Ah ah ah, sorry, but we won't be accepting any vacillation from you today. :nono: You've already implicitly conceded (the "fair point") that because it is not guaranteed that your children will be born with full mental or physical faculties, you cannot discriminate on that basis. Thanks for being so cooperative. :p

[Fade the Butcher]

White Englishmen think of thesmelves as group members as well, I'm sure.

I would say that they attach little salience to their social identity as opposed to their personal identities. A good example of this: banning the English flag over prisons out of the concern that Muslims are offended because the Cross of St. George was used during the Crusades.

But if that the is source of their self-esteem, they have poor characters indeed.

Their celebration of 'multiculturalism' is another example. It shows how much they trivialize and relativize their own culture. The enormous undue importance that is attached to individual self-expression and consumption is the most fundamental cause of this.

Likewise as regards foreigners. We are all individuals, no matter from what culture, and group association is not the same as group identification.

I don't like the word individual, as it lends itself to what I believe is a gross misunderstanding about human nature. It seems to suggest that we are fundamentally self-creating beings (which I consider a piece of romantic and expressionist nonsense), as opposed to members of socially and historically situated collectives. In reality, individuals are born into groups and are simply imparted identity by them: language, knowledge, values, customs, beliefs and so on. This is a predominantly passive, as opposed to active process for the vast majority of people. Even the radical individualism of the contemporary West is socially and historically specific. Humans are group based bipedal mammals. It is senseless to deny this; to assume that the individual is prior to the group as opposed to the other way around. The assumption that group identity is either meaningless or irrelevant is a grossly naive Western prejudice.

Find me the person who will cut his own throat because the group wills it. Fanatics and lunatics, who would not be admitted in any event.

There are plenty of people who are willing to die because their group wills it. There are people who are willing to martyr themselves for the sake of some higher cause. 9/11, Potyondi?

However, this is no kind of evidence against evaluating immigrants on a case-by-case basis.

Immigrants should not be evaluated on a case by case basis.

1.) It is ridiculous to start with the de facto assumption that group identity is meaningless and irrelevant to nonwhite third world immigrants, as it is for cosmopolitan expressionist Western liberals, when these people come from premodern underdeveloped societies where the group almost always takes precedence over the individual. The guiding assumption should, on the contrary, be the other way around.

2.) Immigrants should not be thought of and treated as individuals as immigration is not simply a case of individuals moving from one state to another. Such individuals spawn countless generations of descendents that directly impact the state. Take Maria for example. Maria immigrates to the United States and has ten children. Her ten children are enrolled in the public schools, take advantage of public assistance programs, take advantage of public healthcare programs, five of them commit crimes where they end up in jail and become a burden on taxpayers. These ten children go on to have fifty more children and so on and so on. To say the state has no interest in this is absurd.

3.) Accepting immigrants who appear to possess exceptional traits in some way is equally moronic because of regression to the mean.

:222:

People are not their environments, something you continually fail to grasp in this thread and others.

I don't recall anyone saying here that people are the sum of their environments and their ancestry. If you are trying to say here the individual is fundamentally self constituting, then I totally disagree. The far more important factors are forces that are beyond the control of the individual. No one chooses their biological parents that give the individual his genetic makeup. No one chooses to be born in France or Guinea. No one chooses to be born at any point in history. The knowledge that the individual comes to possess is overwhelmingly not his own. It is imparted to him in a largely passive way.

Ah ah ah, sorry, but we won't be accepting any vacillation from you today. :nono: You've already implicitly conceded (the "fair point") that because it is not guaranteed that your children will be born with full mental or physical faculties, you cannot discriminate on that basis. Thanks for being so cooperative. :p

I haven't conceded any point. It is entirely legitimate to discriminate on the basis of ancestry. That we don't possess perfect knowledge hardly invalidates this if we think of human knowledge as being practical and theoretical in nature. We similarly have no guarantee that a skilled Indian pianist, as an individual, will not become a mass murderer or a rapist. The information provided by social science, which is predominantly of groups, is still eminently useful to the social planner. Social planning, like ethics, is a practical activity. Ethics is not invalidated because no one can tell you the absolutely true right way to live. We still have to decide how to live in any case (just as states still have decide what sort of immigration is legitimate). Thanks for playing. :)

[sainte-marthe]

I haven't argued that art in non-democratic societies is absolutely good whereas art in democratic societies is absolutely bad. On the contrary, I have argued that there is a matrix of factors that lend themselves to good art just as there is another set of factors that does not. Utilitarianism is especially notorious in this respect. If you take seriously the notion that great art is whatever satisfies the greatest number of people, then art is instantly reduced to the tastes of the uncultivated masses. Expressionism is another example of such a degenerate trend in art.


Do you consider the art of the Italian Renaissance to be compatible with your values? Are you still a communitarian?

[Fade the Butcher]

Do you consider the art of the Italian Renaissance to be compatible with your values? Are you still a communitarian?

Sure. The recovery of the Platonic corpus in the West during the Late Middle Ages was an important factor in the new interest in mathematics in both the arts and sciences. An excerpt from a fascinating relevant article.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv3-64

"The influence of Platonism on Renaissance art is generally acknowledged. As Panofsky writes (p. 180), “With an Italian artist of the sixteenth century the presence of Neo Platonic influences is easier to account for than would be their absence.” Foremost among Platonizing artists was Michelangelo himself, “who adopted Neo-Platonism not in certain aspects but in its entirety”—witness the conception of Julius II's apotheosis not as an orthodox Christian resurrection, “but as an ascension in the sense of the Neo Platonic philosophy”; and in the Medici Chapel the figures of Dawn, Day, Evening, and Night, demonstrating “the destructive power of time,” and the four River-Gods depicting “matter as a source of potential evil.”

[sainte-marthe]

Sure. The recovery of the Platonic corpus in the West during the Late Middle Ages was an important factor in the new interest in mathematics in both the arts and sciences.


That's understandable, though there are probably other works that express motifs more representitive of community-centered values than those that appeared in that particular time and place. The Flemish and Dutch masters, as a quick example.

[sainte-marthe]

Sure. .



"The influence of Platonism on Renaissance art is generally acknowledged.


Probably beyond dispute, really. Especially the tomb of Giuliano de' Medici, though it was never finished.

[Donny the Punk]

I would say that they attach little salience to their social identity as opposed to their personal identities. A good example of this: banning the English flag over prisons out of the concern that Muslims are offended because the Cross of St. George was used during the Crusades.
Well, you're quite simply wrong, and I would invite you to produce surveys and plebiscites to refute me. Anyone who thinks nationalism is dead in the west is a fool. It's more alive than it's been in decades. Here's a better example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/966629.stm

Breakfast's ICM Poll

We've commissioned a poll from ICM which examines attitudes to Britishness. The findings are as follows:

# Are you proud to be British?
83% proud
4% not proud

We wanted you to vote for the qualities you think sum up Britishness, here are our results:

Of the ten key words we gave you to vote on - four came out as winners.

# It's clear you feel the being British and being proud go hand in hand - putting it top with 20% of the vote.

# But following close behind were fair, tolerant and insular - all on 14%.

# But the other end of the list revealed what a miserable bunch we can be - optimistic coming bottom with a feeble 1% of the vote.

# We also wanted you to give us your own words that sum up Britishness for you:

Most of you think the British are too politically correct, arrogant, xenophobic and ignorant.

# On the positive side though the great British sense of humour scored highly as did patriotic and polite.

And, for many of you, there are some things that will forever be associated with being British:

The countryside, queuing and a nice cup of tea.

Sometimes you have to stop and remember that your fantasies aren't real, Fade. :p

Their celebration of 'multiculturalism' is another example. It shows how much they trivialize and relativize their own culture.
This is the notion of a supersitious child who believes that associating with someone of different opinions, tastes and looks will compromise his own. Are you terrified you'll lose your bigotry if you're exposed to external challenges to it? Timorous that someone from somewhere else can create something more beautiful and important than you ever could? You don't seem too afraid to talk to me; why are you so afraid of people like me with brown skin and who weren't born here? :p

Rhetoric aside, you're wrong again:

# Do new cultures undermine tradition?
48% of those surveyed said they didn't
34% agreed new cultures did undermine our traditions

# Is Britain changing too quickly?
47% said yes, the UK is changing too quickly
41% said no, they were happy with the pace of change.

As we can see once again, your refusal to acknowledge significant variation between individuals within similar social contexts has led you to believe a lie. Moreover, to equivocate celebrating multiculturalism with hating one's own culture is an infantile us-or-them assessment. It should be below you, but it's not.


The enormous undue importance that is attached to individual self-expression and consumption is the most fundamental cause of this.

Consumption is one way in which some (shallow) individuals, led by the hand by corporations and advertising, choose to value themselves, but the two are not equivalent. Self-expression is only as good as what it produces, but in your sick dystopia we should have discouraged Galileo from completing his Sidereus Nuncius and building telescopes because the undue importance he attached to to individual originality trivialised his own culture, and besides, he was just copying Copernicus, Brahe and Kepler, anyway. :rofl: Heaven forfend that Nietzsche be allowed to relativise nineteenth century Christian Germany with his horrible self-expression, even though Fade would two centuries later prostrate himself for years before the altar of Zarathustra. :rofl:

I don't like the word individual, as it lends itself to what I believe is a gross misunderstanding about human nature. It seems to suggest that we are fundamentally self-creating beings (which I consider a piece of romantic and expressionist nonsense), as opposed to members of socially and historically situated collectives.
That would be a projection on your part. The word individual implies nothing but uniqueness. Individualism urges the virtues of self-reliance and independence, whereas you would have men slavishly adulate the past and think themselves impotent to embellish it or themselves. One wonders how change occurs in your universe. Care to share?

In reality, individuals are born into groups and are simply imparted identity by them: language, knowledge, values, customs, beliefs and so on. This is a predominantly passive, as opposed to active process for the vast majority of people. Even the radical individualism of the contemporary West is socially and historically specific. Humans are group based bipedal mammals. It is senseless to deny this; to assume that the individual is prior to the group as opposed to the other way around. The assumption that group identity is either meaningless or irrelevant is a grossly naive Western prejudice.
Thank you for your ever longer lists of platitudes. This is grade-school stuff, you know, not philosophy.


There are plenty of people who are willing to die because their group wills it. There are people who are willing to martyr themselves for the sake of some higher cause. 9/11, Potyondi?
I didn't say for the sake of some higher cause, I said strictly for the sake of the will of the collective. Try again.

1.) It is ridiculous to start with the de facto assumption that group identity is meaningless and irrelevant to nonwhite third world immigrants, as it is for cosmopolitan expressionist Western liberals, when these people come from premodern underdeveloped societies where the group almost always takes precedence over the individual. The guiding assumption should, on the contrary, be the other way around.
And what conclusion would you draw from this chestnut of yours? That coexistence between different cultures and races is impossible? The world gives you the lie; time to open your eyes.

2.) Immigrants should not be thought of and treated as individuals as immigration is not simply a case of individuals moving from one state to another. Such individuals spawn countless generations of descendents that directly impact the state. Take Maria for example. Maria immigrates to the United States and has ten children. Her ten children are enrolled in the public schools, take advantage of public assistance programs, take advantage of public healthcare programs, five of them commit crimes where they end up in jail and become a burden on taxpayers. These ten children go on to have fifty more children and so on and so on. To say the state has no interest in this is absurd.
There is no difference between the state taking an interest in Maria's progeny and its taking interest in yours, so this has nothing to do with immigration, since neither's success is guaranteed. Your proposal would have Occidental states allow only European whites to flood into our countries because of some chimaera concerning homogeneity and for that reason alone, so far as anyone can tell. And you claim this is more advantageous to screening each individual who applies and making a judgement based on his personal merits? Farcial, really. :(


3.) Accepting immigrants who appear to possess exceptional traits in some way is equally moronic because of regression to the mean.
You mean the regression toward the mean that your favourite eugenicists claim is occuring in America among whites as well as everyone else? :p That's supposed to be a result of skewed breeding statistics, by the by, in case you'd forgotten. Again, your speculation does not concern immigration. If you're discussing what-ifs, it's just as likely that this particular immigrant will have brilliant children who contribute more than yours ever will.


I don't recall anyone saying here that people are the sum of their environments and their ancestry.
You would when you deny "individual accomplishment". (See other thread.)

If you are trying to say here the individual is fundamentally self constituting, then I totally disagree.
Nope, and you know better than to fabricate my positions. Shame.


The far more important factors are forces that are beyond the control of the individual. No one chooses their biological parents that give the individual his genetic makeup. No one chooses to be born in France or Guinea. No one chooses to be born at any point in history. The knowledge that the individual comes to possess is overwhelmingly not his own. It is imparted to him in a largely passive way.
This goes back to the challenge I presented you regarding writing poetry. You claimed, more or less, than if you were to study physics for a long time, immerse yourself in the practise and so forth, you might someday contribute something meaningful to it. This is perfectly incorrect. It assumes you have an exceptional capacity for physics, or any other discipline, which is certainly not the case. Hundreds of thousands of physicists graduate and work every day of the year and only three of overbearing and enduring significance have appeared in the last 350 years: Newton, Einstein, and Hawking. You are none of these and could never hope to be; you are hopelessly inadequate as an individual. It's not because you're not privileged, or privy to less information or lack favourable conditions in which to work. You have every advantage, more so than did any of these three. It is simply because you are utterly incapable of rising to their heights. Did you never once wonder why in a world populated by hundreds of millions of people, only one, that particular one, was able to describe the rotation of planets around a gravitational centre mathematically? What did his richer, better educated contemporaries lack in resources and opportunity? Nothing but his brilliance.

If you spent your whole life trying you would never craft a sonnet equal to one of Shakespeare's or Petrarch's.

But it's more than that. Why does one man lie on the sofa watching soap operas all day while another sits down every day for a year to write The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time? What is it that compels him to seek achievement and defy base mediocrity as sufficient to his existence? What makes one otherwise intelligent individual read Ibsen and deride him while another uses him as inspiration for his own plays? To what 'social context' would you ascribe ambition, Fade? Talent that is not inherent but consciously cultivated through years of effort? You can ascribe them to none, most especially since Arthur Miller and Mark Haddon inhabited those cultural milieus which you so vehemently insist encourage indifference and pedestrianism.


I haven't conceded any point. It is entirely legitimate to discriminate on the basis of ancestry. That we don't possess perfect knowledge hardly invalidates this if we think of human knowledge as being practical and theoretical in nature. We similarly have no guarantee that a skilled Indian pianist, as an individual, will not become a mass murderer or a rapist. The information provided by social science, which is predominantly of groups, is still eminently useful to the social planner. Social planning, like ethics, is a practical activity. Ethics is not invalidated because no one can tell you the absolutely true right way to live. We still have to decide how to live in any case (just as states still have decide what sort of immigration is legitimate). Thanks for playing. :)
Since we have no evidence that you won't become a mass murderer or rapist, either, your hypocrisy doesn't bear out, sorry. :p Always a pleasure.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fuck. I feel like bashing my keyboard against the wall. I just lost a huge response.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Fuck. I feel like bashing my keyboard against the wall. I just lost a huge response.

Explorer crash or internet connection problem?

[Fade the Butcher]

Explorer crash.

[Donny the Punk]

Why are you bizarre people not using firefox? :nono: http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/

[Sulla the Dictator]

Why are you bizarre people not using firefox? :nono: http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/

Because we're n00bz. :(

[Ahknaton]

Go with Opera. Mozilla is better than IE, but it still crashes occasionally. Opera never crashes.

[Hakluyt]

I'd second the use of Opera. Best bet though is to type out your longer responses in a text document first and post them afterward.