Who wants cake? Anybody? Cake? No? Just me?
About Me
- Name: Pops
- Location: The 951, California, United States
I'm very interesting. I would describe myself as witty and insightful, but that wouldn't make either true. I have two degrees in history from the least prestigious University of California campuses. As a result, I stay home full time with my kids. If anyone can think of anything useful to do with a history MA, please don't hesitate to share.
Send me e-mail
The Movies I Have No Intention Of Seeing Series
The Pops' Bucket MSPaint Gallery d'Art
Lives More Interesting Than My Own
Liberalia: Places I Go To Reinforce Opinions I Already Have
Pops' Bucket Hall of Minimal Suckitude
War On Christmas: Letters Home
Archives
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Monday, August 23, 2004
In My Country There Is Problem
It's been quite a day these past 24 hours. If there's a Nobel Prize for Pretzel Logic, I think I may be zeroing in on it at long last. Follow me, won't you?
From time to time I will watch HBO's Da Ali G. Show. It can be painful, excruciating even sometimes, but when it works it is some of the best satire you will find on television anywhere. I hadn't seen it in awhile. The season finale was this past weekend and I didn't see that either.
End of story. Thanks for reading, good night!
No, I found a link to a song that was performed on the show by "Borat", one of the characters portrayed by British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen along with the more-famous (but less consistently funny) Ali G.
The song is called In My Country There Is Problem. The ongoing premise (for the uninitiated) is that "Borat" is a TV host from Kazakhstan presenting his Guide to America. The central part of this shtick is that Borat has a charming Old World, Former Soviet Republic worldview including good old fashioned misogyny, anti-Semitism and a guileless lack of inhibition when expressing his views in conversation with "sophisticated" Americans. Therein lies the satire.
I should point out that Sacha Baron Cohen is himself Jewish and, again, a satirist so none of this is to be taken literally.
Since I didn't see the show, I do not know the context in which the above linked song was presented, which puts me at something of a disadvantage when talking about it. End of disclaimer and on to irresponsible, gravity-defying conclusion-leaps.
As I'm listening to the song, laughing quite hard at something with the refrain "Throw the Jew down the well/so my country can be free/you must grab him by his horns/And we will have a big par-ty", the old Political Correctness starts creeping up and I catch myself questioning myself.
I realize the things presented on a show like Ali G. work on two levels: one for the people experiencing it as it happens and another for those of us in the knowing audience who see the winks and feel the nudges.
But then I started to think about the people in the audience when Borat is singing his song. At first they simply clap along while he is singing the ridiculous first-verse "Throw the transport down the well", but by the end they are enthusiastically responding "Throw the Jew down the well!"
All this tortured exposition is leading to something, I swear.
Like the Loch Ness Monster, cold fusion or Sea Monkeys, I think I have stumbled upon proof of something generally considered unprovable. I have found Politically Correct Anti-Semitism. It just has to be a) really, really old and b) foreign so it can be characterized as "cultural" and thus worthy of our quiet, unquestioning respect.
As the rules of Political Correctness, like the British Constitution, have never been formally codified, this is all guesswork (and no small amount of pseudo-intellectualist mumbo jumbo, I'm proud to report) on my part.
But think about those people listening to and responding to that song, or anyone "Borat" interviews as anti-Semitism almost always crops up, usually in a quick throwaway line. We, the unknowing targets, the big-hearted Americans he is interviewing/entertaining, accept what is said because the man with the ridiculous accent probably just doesn't know any better; political correctness as condescension, which is the absolute worst aspect of that whole movement.
But even further, PC-ness dictates that we embrace multiculturalism. Unfortunately, an antagonistic predisposition toward particular ethnicities or groups can (and should) also be defined as a cultural trait. We substitute immediately-proffered acceptance for thinking, rational understanding. This precludes us from saying "Well, wait a second, I can't agree with that" or even "That's not an idea I'm really comfortable with" and opens us up for satirization and ridicule, without which Sacha Baron Cohen has no show.
Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing.
Really, it's PC stretched to its extreme and coming right out the other side. It's Kipling's White Man's Burden all over again in some ways. I suppose I should be glad we've dropped the exhortation to "To wait, in heavy harness/On fluttered folk and wild". Now all we're expected to do is wait and nod in patient understanding at the backwardness of non-Westerners, which is a load of my mind, let me tell you. I wasn't really looking forward to "And when your goal is nearest/(The end for others sought)/Watch sloth and heathen folly/Bring all your hope to nought". That sounds like it would suck.
Don't misunderstand, there are aspects of political correctness that are admirable and even necessary. People who dismiss it out of hand are just as stupid and closed-minded as those who apply it without consideration.
Like every other intellectual proposition, though, it is rife with paradoxes and weaknesses. It's both hilarious and troubling to have them so clearly delineated by someone as abjectly silly as a fictional Kazakh television presenter.
I guess the contrast is when, playing very gay Austrian fashion reporter "Bruno", he danced with the cheerleaders at an Alabama State University football game, a PC free zone. There they had no problem whatsoever offering misguided Bruno correction.
And in mentioning Alabama, I cite an example all on its own to illustrate the necessity (if not benefit) of political correctness and the Circle of Nonsense is complete.
Tomorrow: Homer Simpson and the errors inherent in post-colonial theory.
This post on the Narcissus Scale: 9.0
Pops
- posted by Pops @ 2:28 PM
Comments:
<< Home
|
ah, the whole "och, he doesn't know any better" line. well fuck me, he's never going to know any better if we always let him away with racist/homophobic/whatever comments is he?
Hulkster: I deliberately abuse the rules of propriety to force people to read this crap. Thanks for falling into my politeness trap.
c'lam: If you make racism into a song, people will sing along. There's hardly time to interrupt.
c'lam: If you make racism into a song, people will sing along. There's hardly time to interrupt.
I gave that post my best effort but, perhaps owing to my lack of HBO, I couldn't understand what you were saying. At all. Otherwise, I'd probably be disagreeing with you right now. In any case, can I get the watered-down version of that thought?
In my defense, Rita, I did give the "pretzel logic" disclaimer right up front, so it may well be that complete familiarity with the subject matter would not have helped one bit.
That said, my main thrust was the political correctness has evolved to the point that we would accept the things it was supposed to preclude (racism, sexism, anti-Semitism) if it presented in the guise of multiculturalism.
There was supposed to be sort of a dual action going on, PC as rejection of certain speech/action while at the same time PC as acceptance of any speech/action so long as it is legitimately culturally derived.
Hence you can get a group of Americans singing "Throw the Jew down the well" if they think it's an old Kazakh folk song. And has a bouncy, catchy beat.
Problem is that I wrote it all myself, so none of it is particularly clear.
That said, my main thrust was the political correctness has evolved to the point that we would accept the things it was supposed to preclude (racism, sexism, anti-Semitism) if it presented in the guise of multiculturalism.
There was supposed to be sort of a dual action going on, PC as rejection of certain speech/action while at the same time PC as acceptance of any speech/action so long as it is legitimately culturally derived.
Hence you can get a group of Americans singing "Throw the Jew down the well" if they think it's an old Kazakh folk song. And has a bouncy, catchy beat.
Problem is that I wrote it all myself, so none of it is particularly clear.
Oh, ok. Well, rather more so than political correctness, multiculturalism is a thoroughly bankrupt ideology. The result is simply to make people stupid by delegitimizing any authentic search for the good that would involve questioning values.
Well, it can't be all bad. Go to any university library and look up British, American or French history and you will get a list of 2/3 of the books in the damn place. Then check how much work has been done on the other 95% of the global population and it's laughable.
Multiculturalism might be poorly implemented and championed badly by people who don't understand it, but at least the blatant preference (and by suggestion, superiority) of white Christian people is being eroded to the point of demystification. That can't really be a bad thing.
Multiculturalism might be poorly implemented and championed badly by people who don't understand it, but at least the blatant preference (and by suggestion, superiority) of white Christian people is being eroded to the point of demystification. That can't really be a bad thing.
Well, it's not surprising that the vast majority of America's focus is on itself, followed by focus on similar countries with whom it is closely connected, and going outward in circles of decreasing connection. Understandably, there is little American interest in the natives of New Guinea because there is little connection between America and New Guinea. I'm sure if you checked a British library, there would be a lot more "multicultural" subject matter, but limited only to places Britain happened to control at some point. And, I really wonder what you would find in a library in Iran these days...
I would contend that it is not multiculturalism that has disrupted the status quo (um, white male privilege?) so much as the combination of domestic circumstances (sharply increased immigration from the East and the Third World in the postwar years) and international politics (the rise of China and Japan as major world powers, the use of the Third World as a Cold War battleground) that has shifted American perceptions of non-European peoples. Multiculturalism is a deeply limited ideology that essentially preaches to fourth-graders that American history is one long chain of oppression and Benin is a better country because it has an "authentic culture," and that we actually can't judge other cultures because judgment precludes "open-mindedness" and open-mindedness, which leads to something akin to braindeath, is the cardinal virtue. It also extends somewhat to college curricula, where it is embodied in "diversity courses," which are premised on the assumption that simply having non-WASP (but especially black and Hispanic, since other minorities are less oppressed and therefore less enriching) people around you is an enriching experience. But, notably, one you can't really handle without special training in sensitivity. In fact, it's so enriching to you that only a racist would question its exact benefits. It is also found in the genius idea of required "non-Western" courses which bizarrely always consist of literature consciously written by Western-educated people to represent their non-Western brothers (think: Things Fall Apart). Granted, most of Africa and the Americas didn't have writing before European contact so their literatures are kind of limited to things influenced by Europe, but Asia and the Middle East certainly did. You could actually have people read real non-Western literature like the Analects or the Gitas, but that wouldn't get across the same message of the white man being evil.
I would contend that it is not multiculturalism that has disrupted the status quo (um, white male privilege?) so much as the combination of domestic circumstances (sharply increased immigration from the East and the Third World in the postwar years) and international politics (the rise of China and Japan as major world powers, the use of the Third World as a Cold War battleground) that has shifted American perceptions of non-European peoples. Multiculturalism is a deeply limited ideology that essentially preaches to fourth-graders that American history is one long chain of oppression and Benin is a better country because it has an "authentic culture," and that we actually can't judge other cultures because judgment precludes "open-mindedness" and open-mindedness, which leads to something akin to braindeath, is the cardinal virtue. It also extends somewhat to college curricula, where it is embodied in "diversity courses," which are premised on the assumption that simply having non-WASP (but especially black and Hispanic, since other minorities are less oppressed and therefore less enriching) people around you is an enriching experience. But, notably, one you can't really handle without special training in sensitivity. In fact, it's so enriching to you that only a racist would question its exact benefits. It is also found in the genius idea of required "non-Western" courses which bizarrely always consist of literature consciously written by Western-educated people to represent their non-Western brothers (think: Things Fall Apart). Granted, most of Africa and the Americas didn't have writing before European contact so their literatures are kind of limited to things influenced by Europe, but Asia and the Middle East certainly did. You could actually have people read real non-Western literature like the Analects or the Gitas, but that wouldn't get across the same message of the white man being evil.
You are to be applauded for your level of cynicism. It is quite advanced and well done.
But no, I disagree that interest in non-Western culture is driven purely by self-interest and some kind of desire to reflect changing internal demographics. At the higher academic level, like everything else, this is all Marx's fault, or rather it's the fault of hippies getting jobs as professors and bringing their copies of Das Kapital with them. By reducing history to economics, the barriers between cultures fall away and the interconnectedness--not only between peoples but between disciplines extending to sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy, politcal theory, etc.--becomes more and more apparent.
Apart (somewhat) from that is the parallel movement especially in France toward "total history" (thinking specifically of figures like Fernand Braudel) which not only searches for but emphasizes the connections between cultures.
The penetration of this type of thinking always filters down to the lower levels of academia (public schools) in less-than-perfect ways, limited mostly by a lack of time to present the information properly in a decent, understandable context. Add to it the political dimension of the civil rights generation rising to the cultural forefront and you get multiculturalism.
As annoying as Marxism and all its maddening offshoots are, before that you had either March of Progress history or blatant religious sermonizing vs. all targets, which is where you get the History of White Folks.
But you're right, the political has overtaken the academic and undone any thought of measured, meaningful implementation.
But no, I disagree that interest in non-Western culture is driven purely by self-interest and some kind of desire to reflect changing internal demographics. At the higher academic level, like everything else, this is all Marx's fault, or rather it's the fault of hippies getting jobs as professors and bringing their copies of Das Kapital with them. By reducing history to economics, the barriers between cultures fall away and the interconnectedness--not only between peoples but between disciplines extending to sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy, politcal theory, etc.--becomes more and more apparent.
Apart (somewhat) from that is the parallel movement especially in France toward "total history" (thinking specifically of figures like Fernand Braudel) which not only searches for but emphasizes the connections between cultures.
The penetration of this type of thinking always filters down to the lower levels of academia (public schools) in less-than-perfect ways, limited mostly by a lack of time to present the information properly in a decent, understandable context. Add to it the political dimension of the civil rights generation rising to the cultural forefront and you get multiculturalism.
As annoying as Marxism and all its maddening offshoots are, before that you had either March of Progress history or blatant religious sermonizing vs. all targets, which is where you get the History of White Folks.
But you're right, the political has overtaken the academic and undone any thought of measured, meaningful implementation.
It's not cynicism. It's realism. What else but idiotic education serves to explain the preponderance of anti-Americanism on my campus espoused by people who are themselves the greatest beneficiaries of America? They were taught in their affluent schools to hate their affluence because it could only have been achieved through exploiting poor people. Tell people that being poor is noble, and it's not too hard to convince them that illiterate Ukrainian peasants are living the really meaningful lives while they're mired in petty materialism. I don't think it's a lack of time to devote to explaining multiculturalism sensibly either; I took a full year of non-Western social studies in junior high that was largely dedicated to explaining how African countries were culturally rich, which overrode their political and economic bankrupcy.
I can see how Marxism could've increased interest in non-Western cultures, but I don't believe it can be pinpointed as the source of that interest. Britain, for example, has been studying the indigenous cultures of its empire since it first established its rule in those places. Orientalism is a British invention that predates Marx. Similarly, look at the surge in books on Islam published post- 9/11. There is clearly a connection between necessity and research. When it isn't necessary to expend effort learning about New Guinea, it won't be studied. And, what goes on in the Ivory Tower translates slowly, if at all, to real life. 99% of the publications being spewed from it never get read by more than a handful of people.
I can see how Marxism could've increased interest in non-Western cultures, but I don't believe it can be pinpointed as the source of that interest. Britain, for example, has been studying the indigenous cultures of its empire since it first established its rule in those places. Orientalism is a British invention that predates Marx. Similarly, look at the surge in books on Islam published post- 9/11. There is clearly a connection between necessity and research. When it isn't necessary to expend effort learning about New Guinea, it won't be studied. And, what goes on in the Ivory Tower translates slowly, if at all, to real life. 99% of the publications being spewed from it never get read by more than a handful of people.
My problem is that I actually believe other cultures are worth studying whether or not they are politically or culturally bankrupt. That's the sort of impulse in post-colonial theory, but even that has even in its name more than a hint of apologia.
True people don't read academic monographs in general, but public school teachers go to universities where the authors of those monographs teach history, sociology, English, which is why the transfer is usually imperfect, to say the least. But its those teachers along with higher-up education professionals that build curricula.
But I think at base, we're both arguing in our own way against the overlay, Orientalism or Marxism or post-colonialism. In my convoluted post above, that was one of my main points, that multiculturalism shouldn't be an excuse to be lazy about ugliness or to pretend not to notice it when it pops up (it's sort of hard to miss). I think it would benefit all junior high kids to spend a year learning about Africa, but apartheid and Rwandan genocide should be as much a part of it as "Africa is where diamonds come from! And they carry baskets on their heads!"
But isn't waiting until a crisis explodes just waiting too long? Wouldn't we have been better off if we had a slew of people studying Islam, for example, pre-9/11 so that when something like that happens, we have a pool to draw from. It's that old joke "War is how Americans learn geography". So right now no one gives a shit about New Guinea, but if some New Guinean natives hijack a ship full of Hyundais somewhere, people will notice and we'd all wish we knew what the fuck these New Guineans' problem was.
OK, no one would notice a boat full of Hyundais, but you get my point.
So I agree with the idea of a multicultural approach in general, even in steering young minds toward a wider world view, I just don't like the way it's being done at present.
Post a Comment
True people don't read academic monographs in general, but public school teachers go to universities where the authors of those monographs teach history, sociology, English, which is why the transfer is usually imperfect, to say the least. But its those teachers along with higher-up education professionals that build curricula.
But I think at base, we're both arguing in our own way against the overlay, Orientalism or Marxism or post-colonialism. In my convoluted post above, that was one of my main points, that multiculturalism shouldn't be an excuse to be lazy about ugliness or to pretend not to notice it when it pops up (it's sort of hard to miss). I think it would benefit all junior high kids to spend a year learning about Africa, but apartheid and Rwandan genocide should be as much a part of it as "Africa is where diamonds come from! And they carry baskets on their heads!"
But isn't waiting until a crisis explodes just waiting too long? Wouldn't we have been better off if we had a slew of people studying Islam, for example, pre-9/11 so that when something like that happens, we have a pool to draw from. It's that old joke "War is how Americans learn geography". So right now no one gives a shit about New Guinea, but if some New Guinean natives hijack a ship full of Hyundais somewhere, people will notice and we'd all wish we knew what the fuck these New Guineans' problem was.
OK, no one would notice a boat full of Hyundais, but you get my point.
So I agree with the idea of a multicultural approach in general, even in steering young minds toward a wider world view, I just don't like the way it's being done at present.
<< Home
