From my new VDARE.com column:
Once or twice per year, my local Costco puts out for sale a big stack of paperback copies of Charles C. Mann’s 2005 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, a detailed combination of history, travelogue, and popular science that has become one of more respected and popular nonfiction books of the last decade. I find it heartening that somebody can still make decent money writing an ambitious, serious, and well-researched book. Now Mann has published a new bestseller sequel about the historical roots of globalization: 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
50 comments:
Thank fucking god for the Vdare makeover. It was way overdue.
"It would have been interesting if Mann had speculated about what the outcome would have been if the English had resisted the temptation to import black slaves into North America."
A test case here might be Australia. The English arrived in a continent where the natives had not yet invented the wheel nor built a permanent structure. Yes, there was convict labor on hand but that was really only a minor part of the agronomy that rapidly grew the country.
I would suggest that, in terms of long-term repercussions, America's use of African slave labor was a colossal mistake.
We know the Mongols existed, where are the Mongol ruins? We know people were in Africa longer than anywhere, and people build civilizations, where are the African ruins?
Migratory plains people don't leave ruins.
If you dig deep to foundations and remains, there's sign that copperworking was developed around the Great Lakes before anywhere in the world, for the same reason that Michigan specialized in metalworking later on, rough land with deposits open to easy development and rivers for trading.
**Similarly, the famous cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde National Park in southwest Colorado were evacuated about two centuries before Europeans reached the New World. The usual assumptions are that both populations vanished because they exceeded their Malthusian limits.**
Actually, there was a drought in the Southwest in the late 1200s that lasted for twenty years without significant rain. All but a few survivors of a few tribes starved to death or migrated out. The Aztecs were among the migrants, arriving in Mexico City only in 1325.
(If you live in southern CA, NM, UT, CO, or AZ, remember that there is a 20-year drought from time to time. Your home will eventually have to be abandoned; it's only a matter of time. And global warming will make it sooner.)
**the market for books of any kind is paltry in Latin America. **
There sure seem to be a lot of prosperous book shops in Mexican cities. Just because the migrants sent North are illiterate peasants doesn't mean everybody is. Most educated Mexicans do better economically staying home than migrating.
That's why Mexicans in the USA don't buy books; you're getting the dregs.
And Mexico City is far from a dystopia. It's only Gringo eyes that are conditioned to reject anything but an insipid strip mall and parking lot sewer that could fail to see its charm. Mexico City is a far better, more interesting, more sustainable, and more humane place for man to live than any city in the United States. Aside from gachupines and the 1970's, it was nice in previous centuries, too.
Regarding ruins; there is a shortage of pre-Medieval ruins in Scandinavia too, even though the area was well settled.
The obvious reason, that probably applies to North America as well, is that timber was plentiful, and the available stone material was mainly granite, which is absurdly hard to work. So everything was built in wood, and has perished with time.
I did enjoy Mann´s book, it was well written and he made a good case for his theories. Fascinating ideas about the population and landscaping of the Amazon too.
(By contrast the book Steve referred to the other day, "The Tribal Imagination" by Robin Fox, has some interesting points, but the book seems a bit loosely assembled.)
"In contrast, English-speakers in the past tended to justify their settlement of North America on the grounds that it was not densely populated by indigenous people. In old Western movies, the heroes explain to cruel Indians that the white man will win in the end because there are more of them. Winning the West was democracy in action: majority rule."
Going by this logic, Americans have no right to complain about mass immigration, since there are a lot more non-Americans trying to live in the U.S than there are Americans. Majority rule. And unlike European immigration, the current immigration is not killing Americans en masse unlike what the White Man did to the indians, so you have even less of a moral claim to stop the current mass immgration.
Or, perhaps there were lots of North American Indians, but, unlike Mexican Indians, they just didn't see much point in building expensive monuments for future tourists to gape at
heh.
despite the 'disease' theory - which is pretty believable SWPL still like to say we 'slaughtered' the 'indians' (as if they were one big tribe holding hands and singing hymns to nature. I even had a german woman have the audacity to tell me this.
interestingly enough, our eastern forests would look much different than today - lots of big tall pines (it was white guys looking for ship masts that cut those down) -not as big as redwoods but still impressive - and pretty much no or little underbrush as the indians or natural fires (much less frequent) burnt it out). so it actually, ironically enough would have been more park like.
PS to support the idea of some posters about big civilizations who don't build in stone disappearing - the eastern us was actually less forested in the early 19th cenutry - the only remains of most of those farmsteads are some rough stone walls, which look little more like piles of rocks.
I got the impression from 1491 that early Spanish explorers found large cities in the SE US. Following explorers 50-100 years later found nothing; presumably wiped out by disease. Perhaps I remember incorrectly.
I also remember Mann describing an early Dutch explorer sailing up the Hudson at night and being amazed by masses of light from fires from villages lining the banks.
But perhaps this latter observation does not speak to a large population; just a concentration along a major river.
Robert Hume
"It would have been interesting if Mann had speculated about what the outcome would have been if the English had resisted the temptation to import black slaves into North America."
Or, what might have happened if Anglo-Americans had imported Asian-Indian slaves or indentured labor?
Sailer is right about music in the 20th century, but in other ways, it might have been more interesting without the African or black influence. In some ways, the fun rhythmic allure of 'black music' may have prevented the development of more 'serious' and varied forms of American music.
After all, suppose afro-rhythmic music had been introduced to Germany in the 17th century and became all the rage. It might have inspired some fun great music, but it might have prevented the rise of men like Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. Or those men might have composed assy than classy music.
In a way, we can see this with Hollywood movies. Yes, Hollywood made US the movie capital of the world. Yes, Hollywood advanced movie technology more than any other nation and produce many masterpieces. But it also limited the kind of serious adult filmmaking that developed in France and other parts of Europe--and Japan up to the late 60s. Instead, what dominated the screen was formula and genre. They worked alright and were popular--and conquered the world--but not always for the better. In his later phase, Orson Welles had to rely on European funding to finish his movies. Are Europeans films 'duller' than Hollywood movies? In some ways, yes. But in other ways, they are more adult and serious(and truthful).
I suppose Mann is right about the seeds of globalization being planted in 1491, but I would use the term more carefully. (Btw, weren't Persians under Xerxes, Greeks under Alexander, the Romans, and Mongols also globalists? Or was it truly global only when the 'Old World' was wedded to the 'New World'?)
I would say globalization and globalism really took off AFTER WWII with the end of Western imperialism and the rise of global capitalism and political ideology dominated by Americans. (I would also agree with Yuri Slezkine that Jews played a big part through banking, high-tech, influence in American politics, and intellectualism.)
What distinguishes globalism from imperialism(which is what Columbus unleashed)is the concept/ideal of equality and mutuality. From the time of Columbus to WWII, though much of the world was being connected and networked, the relations between Europeans and non-Europeans were not equal(and relations among Europeans were not equal, even up to end of the Cold War: Austrians lorded over Serbians, at least up to WWI. Russians lorded over Poles prior to end of WWI and then again up to WWI and them from WWII to end of Cold War.) It was a given that some peoples and nations would rule over others, and others should submit and obey. This was imperialism, not globalism. Imperialism spread technology, new ideas, and brought forth much progress(much of it positive)for non-Europeans, but it also could be ruthless, cruel, and murderous(as in Congo under Belgians). Also, the West had easy or aggressive access to the non-West, but not vice verse. Also, Westerners thought they had the right to use naked aggression for profit or to civilize the 'savages'. Also, the West spread(or tried to)spread Christianity all around the world.
Also, there were big divisions within any Western nation in terms of class. Before the ideals of the French Revolution really took hold all across Europe, the elites looked upon their own people as subjects than citizens with legal/political rights. In some ways, the British monarchy and aristocracy regarded people who spoke cockney not much higher than Hindus in India. Of course, the blokes had more legal rights and 'privileges' as Britons, but the British elites in some ways felt closer to elites of other nations/civilizations(even non-white ones)than with the lower-class masses in their own nations. When a Polynesian king visited UK, the queen had him sit next to her at dinner. Though he was a 'barbarian', he was still a fellow monarch--higher than the masses who were subjects. (To be sure, globalist elites think and feel the same way. British elites would rather dilly-dally with elite Africans and Asians than deal with the lowly 'yobs'. But ideologically and culturally at least, everyone is SUPPOSED to be equal nowadays. In a paradoxical way, elite-elite camaraderie is used as proof that the elites are for equality. So, if Gordon Brown is chummy with some powerful African leader, it means he's not a 'racist' but a progressive who sees a black man as an equal. And if some lowly white working class woman complains about out-of-control immigration, it means she is the 'racist' who rejects global equality. Gordon Brown is an elitist who hangs around other elitists, but since many of those other elitists are non-white, it means he's not an elitist but an egalitarian. Confusing but logical in a twisted way. Obama is useful to white lib elites in the same way. "Hey, we are chummy with a black guy.")
The fall of imperialism and rise of globalism meant there would no longer be unequal treaties(as those that existed between the West and China). Instead, even the weakest and poorest nations would be represented in the U.N., its rights would be respected, and it would have the power/freedom to choose its own destiny with the rest of the world. Of course, this doesn't mean all nations are equal in power and wealth in the global order. In some ways, the divisions are wider today than yesterday, especially between rising Asia and falling Africa. But legally anyway, there is an agreement that no nation or people have the right to conquer and 'exploit' another nation(though I must say Hong Kong did better under British 'exploitation' than China did under Chinese 'independence' under Mao.) And when cases of military action do exist(by the great powers), we are told it's for humanitarian purposes(No Fly Zone to save Libyans)or to stop possible terrorism(WMD in Iraq).
China could not have risen so fast under the system of imperialism.
Unequal treaties and naked Western aggression would have kept it down. (Of course, China lucked out cuz all the great powers wanted a piece, and since no one could hog it all--like Brits with India--, the great powers decided to adopt the John-Nash-like game theory of each side getting a slice than get nothing by fighting one another. When Japan later to take all of it, that didn't work out so good.)
Another hallmark of globalism is the reverse flow of peoples. During imperialism, it was whites--or more specifically Anglos, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and some Dutch--massively migrating to other parts of the world(while their own nations remained white). Today, the population flow goes both ways(in the name of 'anti-racist' and 'diversity is beautiful' ideology; actually more the OTHER way. We have massive influx of Africans and Muslims into Europe. We have massive Third World immigration to the US, which had been made into a white nation but is now a Whatever nation.
Globalization also made Edmund Burke's idea moot. Burke said change/progress is slow, but of course he really meant it SHOULD BE slow. This was true for most of history before American Revolution and French Revolution, and Burke was looking at the 'old days and ways'. But nothing is slow today and can't be even if it tried. The fact that history moves fast is found in America itself. How did the mighty Anglos who were dominant in all elite institutions in America lose so much so fast, especially to Jews? How did blacks, who had to take a backseat of the bus, turn into a bunch of Al Sharptons shaking their fist at all of us? How did a nation where interracism was taboo, within several decades, churn out all sorts of interracist music videos and porn? One can hope change would be slow, but that's old thinking. The world is in revolution, not evolution, mode. From 1491 to 19th century, the world changed gradually(despite major discoveries and upheavals) and much remained the same, especially if you were an illiterate or subliterate farmer. But the 20th century unleashed something entirely new, and globalization took off in the second half of 20th century.
"Thank fucking god for the Vdare makeover. It was way overdue."
Yes, I'm glad Vdare finally dropped the Newly-Formed-Congregation-Puts-Out-Its-First-Monthly-Church-Bulletin look.
Fingers crossed that the new and improved look flies under John Deere's radar.
"And Mexico City is far from a dystopia. It's only Gringo eyes that are conditioned to reject anything but an insipid strip mall and parking lot sewer that could fail to see its charm. Mexico City is a far better, more interesting, more sustainable, and more humane place for man to live than any city in the United States."
OK. Thanks for the lesson in how to say "agenda" in Spanish.
"Aside from gachupines and the 1970's, it was nice in previous centuries, too."
And presumably you "know" this the same way you know Mexico City is a "far better" place to live than any city in the United States.
Thanks for the linguistic and history lessons, wetback*.
*Used in accordance with your own use of the derogatory terms, Gringo and gachupines. Yes, I know you're most likely not a wetback but a Gringo who's not only surviving but thriving under his or her burden of White Guilt. Just saying the contempt cuts both ways. Oh, and chinga tu madre.
anon 7:19.. you turned this.. into a 'jews' post... impressive! You could have started with their heavy participation in the slave trade, both in norther america and spanish america (yes, isabel expelled them but converso families dominated the slave trade, which isabel had actually issued an edict against which was largely ignored (difficult to enforce 3000+ miles away)
I wish that Mann had developed further his theme of the benefits and dangers of the Homogenocene. For example, the global dominance of the English language in the 21st Century certainly makes life more convenient for English-speakers. Why bother learning a foreign language anymore?
But is the world in danger of entering an intellectual Homogenocene in which global discourse is restricted to merely that which is considered appropriate in the English-speaking media capitals of New York, Washington, London, and Los Angeles? For example, Alexander Solzhenitsyn couldn’t get his last two books published in New York because they, apparently, offended local prejudices.
Is the world putting too many eggs in too few intellectual baskets?
This is a very good and interesting point.
I'll add there are more than a few low-cost (ie. more efficient) solutions invented in the old Soviet bloc and ignored in the West because 1) they weren't invented here so nobody has heard of them 2) 1) we're rich, who cares (except that our wealth is on borrowed time).
It would be interesting to read Mann's account of Mexico City with Hobsbawm's account of Mexico City (and other Latin American Cities) in his history of Latin America. I forget the book's title, but I remember the chapter being called 'the Baroque City' and far from stressing diversity, it was all about how the Spanish managed to replicate, far from home and with not much materially or human-wise to work with, the cities of Latin, Baroque-era Europe. I think Hobsbawm's account also rings true, and maybe doesn't go far enough even. I remember the first time I stood on the Forum in Rome and got an odd bit of deja view. Then it hit me, with its mix of plaza, political buildings and religious shrines, it was the model for the Zocalo or any major Latin American/Spanish city's central square. Longue Durée indeed.
On the issue of whether the USA was ultimately built on the proceeds of slavery versus whether the USA has suffered and continues to suffer grieviously from the legacy of slavery, the point is moot and perhaps really unanswerable in that context.
The point is that slavery and the plantation system happened.Nothing more can be said.Basically it was pure capitalism in action, get-rich-quick schemes whereby chancers from England could live in a big house with big gardens just like the local lord of the manor did back home.As with all capitalist booms (think of tulips, South Sea and even sub-prime), cash continued to roll in as long as returns were to be made - that was the only justification.The capitalists running the show never even bothered to think far ahead as to what the ultimate implications of their greed was to be, all that mattered weas profits today.
One American sage (Americans orgive me, I can't remember if it was Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson), did compare slavery to 'riding a tiger', so at least he was aware of the full ramifications.
In this context, uppermost in our minds we must think of the push toward 'open-border' immigration policies by capitalist shills and their paid hirelings, in particular 'The Economist' magazine and the WSJ.
Are you really happy about the future implications of a Mexican dominated USA? - Is it really worth 10c off abox of strawberries?
Also moot is the role of slavery and the plantation system in building up the USA's stock of wealth, wealth apparently that the growth in the 19th century was supposed to have sprung.
Yes, lucrative crops like tobacco and cotton earned a lot of revenue,but the real rise of the USA to world industrial pre-eminence occurred later on, in the north and mid-west, in particular with the full development of factories and industrial development.This occurred under a strict tariff regime.
Anyone read this book THEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT?
"Going by this logic, Americans have no right to complain about mass immigration, since there are a lot more non-Americans trying to live in the U.S than there are Americans. Majority rule. And unlike European immigration, the current immigration is not killing Americans en masse unlike what the White Man did to the indians, so you have even less of a moral claim to stop the current mass immgration."
If they were not both heavily outnumbered, and dependent on our institutions than the demographics transformation of America would be a done deal right now.
OT:
It turns out that prostitution is big on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4rd Wednesday of the month in Oakland. Those are apparently gov't check days. Kind of amusing. You have to scroll down to the bar chart for the money shot:
http://blog.uber.com/2011/09/13/uberdata-how-prostitution-and-alcohol-make-uber-better/
I have to laugh at some of these comments. Unequal relationships ended? Gee, ask the Tibetans, Vietnamese, Nepalese, and Indians how that goes with China. Or Filipinos, or Indonesians, or Malaysians for that matter. One might ask the Serbians, the Greeks, the Lebanese, and the Kuwaitis how much Globalism protects them as small nations. From being dominated or forced into subservient positions.
Human nature has not changed, just because someone buys cheap $20 sneakers made in China by child slave labor, in Mexico City or LA.
Globalization weakens nations by binding the rise in wealth/power, and self interest of the elites, to foreign nations and peoples instead of their own. Last time I looked, Bill Gates was not a Jew (again we have that "it's all those devious Jews! fault. What was the question?" stuff). Yet the Gates Foundation (Bill Gates answers basically to Melinda Gates only) spends money on non-Whites in the US and Africa. Why?
Because it allows Melinda to play "Nice White Lady" (and Bill to play Bono's Sidekick) in the globalist social climbing. Bill spending $10 billion in Africa instead of the US like Andrew Carnegie makes for a more pleasant Davos. That's the fruit of globalization. Elites care more about each other and moral props than their own citizens.
DanJ said...
Regarding ruins; there is a shortage of pre-Medieval ruins in Scandinavia too, even though the area was well settled.
The obvious reason, that probably applies to North America as well, is that timber was plentiful, and the available stone material was mainly granite, which is absurdly hard to work. So everything was built in wood, and has perished with time.
Yeah. The only old stone structure in Bergen, Bergenhus Fortress, was built by Scottish stone masons and architects.
The oldest part of it is believed to have been built by English stonemasons and architects.
The proto-Norwegians built everything of wood and had to import people from England and Scotland to build stone structures.
Scotland is in many ways like Norway: Mountainous, wooded with fjords/lochs, lots of granite. And yet Scotland is full of very old structures built of stone.
I suspect the medievel and pre-medievel shortage of scandanavian stone masons has a more intriguing cause.
Although I know not what that cause might be.
"interestingly enough, our eastern forests would look much different than today - lots of big tall pines (it was white guys looking for ship masts that cut those down) -not as big as redwoods but still impressive - and pretty much no or little underbrush as the indians or natural fires (much less frequent) burnt it out). so it actually, ironically enough would have been more park like."
Don't buy it. You're putting out the new Forest Service line that says that Eastern Forests were "fire dependent" like western ones, partially due to Indian burning regimes. There is no significant evidence that this was true across most of the East. For example, there is no archaelogical evidence of large native populations in the Southern Applalachians. Even DeSoto, when we went through the area, mentioned maybe a dozen villages along the entire western foothills of the region, none having more than 150 people. Are you going to tell me that a low population of indians living in river valleys spent all their free time setting the mountains on fire? For what? The happy hunting grounds theory is pretty weak.
THe Forest Service loves this narrative because 40 percent of their budget is fire mgmt. They also want to recreate pine-oak plantations which will resemble tree farms.
The earliest Forest Service records of virgin timber stands(we're talking 200-300 year trees and up) record oaks, cherry, walnut, chestnut (now virtually extinct), poplar, beech. Even the xeric "pine" areas were partially other species, and made up less of the forest than foresters now tout as natural.
Fire's role in the east is much overstated. This business of 5-8 year burn regimes as being natural or "native inspired" is a fantasy driven by other agendas.
"And Mexico City is far from a dystopia. It's only Gringo eyes that are conditioned to reject anything but an insipid strip mall and parking lot sewer that could fail to see its charm. "
Are you white? Anglo? If both, congratulations on an enormous conceptual breakthrough. You hear whites complain of strip malls, of course. But it's the rarest thing for whites to travel to non-white lands and see the positives of strip mall free living. It's like they never put 2+2 together.
" Mexico City is a far better, more interesting, more sustainable, and more humane place for man to live than any city in the United States."
Biggest laugh that I've had all day.
@elvisd
sweetheart, see the book "reading the forested landscape"
http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Forested-Landscape-Natural-History/dp/0881504203
http://www.antiochne.edu/directory/employee_detail.cfm?id=7160008722
I think he knows what he's talking about.
Mann's first book was great. I'm looking forward to reading this one now.
"Biggest laugh that I've had all day."
See what I mean?
Reply to anon at 4:36 AM;
Then Americans today must have the same right to fight to stop the onslaught as the aboriginals did centuries ago. Can i go scalp my Pakistani neighbour? Also how come nobody seems to have the "right" to just move to Mexico? Didn't Cortez kill a whole bunch Of Aztec Indians and settle down there?
To Anonymous at 4:36 AM;
I can think of a 1,000 flaws with your argument, but here is just one. An immigrant TODAY arrives to all sorts of benefits, goodies and creature comforts that did not exist in 1493-1924. And all of the things he enjoys (like coming here in a plane and landing in an airport, instead of spending weeks pitching at sea in a small ship, tragically this applied to the slaves too) were built by whites. What claim do immigrants today have on any of this, since it was neither built or created by them or by the Aboriginals? Who built the Interstate the immigrant drives on? The hospitals he goes to? Who provides welfare? Certainly not Geronimo and company...
"And unlike European immigration the current immigration is not killing Americans en masse unlike what the white man did to the Indians so you have even less of a moral claim to stop the current mass immigration."
Such convoluted logic. Should I feel "grateful" my Vietnamese and Arab neighbours haven't killed me? The "current immigrants" are not killing Americans because unlike the Indians we are not violently resisting our racial dispossesion. Since we are just giving our country away, the "current immigrants" have NO NEED TO FIGHT US AND KILL US. That's really big of them I guess. Of course white people's ancestors also could have taken a pass on killing the Indians if they had just shrugged and done nothing if their treasonous elites of chiefs had just let open the door to whites, passed "hate laws" against any Indian brave who tries to use violence to resist, or even to speak out against it and created a politically correct system that made whites beyond criticism. But since they didn't and tried to kill us, we didn't have the luxury of "morality".
Of course, this doesn't mean all nations are equal in power and wealth in the global order. In some ways, the divisions are wider today than yesterday, especially between rising Asia and falling Africa.
Africa isn't "falling." Africa is rising, more rapidly than ever. That they're still a long way behind everyone else doesn't negate this.
Obviously you've succumbed to the temptation of thinking well, they're black, so duh, what else could they be doing except "falling." But IQ differentials don't necessarily mean that stagnation is their permanent condition. They may yet retrogress again, but falling from a new, higher plateau should be expected to mean they'll bottom out a higher low, so they idea of African progress isn't counseled out completely even in this undesirable scenario.
I heartily agree with the rest of your comment though.
Whiskey, you cretin. The point isn't that it's a perfect world. The point is that far more people (especially people who matter -- ie not you) are striving to make it one than ever before -- to the point where it's war-mongering c-words like your not-so-good self who have to fight to get a word in edgewise, not the goofy peaceniks.
Hacienda,
Why do you even read these blogs? Kwicherbichin, you little...well, there's no need to say it is there.
SIlver
Hacienda:"Are you white? Anglo? If both, congratulations on an enormous conceptual breakthrough. You hear whites complain of strip malls, of course. But it's the rarest thing for whites to travel to non-white lands and see the positives of strip mall free living. It's like they never put 2+2 together."
MMm. Strip-mall free living plus living with Mexicans. Seems a bit more like putting 2+0 together.
@elvisd
sweetheart, see the book "reading the forested landscape"
No sweetheart, he THINKS he knows what he's talking about.
http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/The_fire_and_oak_hypothesis_incorporating_the_infl.html
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/15723
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06390.x/abstract
"Africa isn't 'falling.' Africa is rising, more rapidly than ever. That they're still a long way behind everyone else doesn't negate this."
Africa is NOT rising. Some sectors--mainly raw materials--in certain African nations are rising, and so the GDP figures look impressive, but there is no real progress in political and social areas. Also, Africans are dependent on Chinese not only for extraction of raw materials but for building all the roads and hospitals, and etc.
This is not real progress. It is less Africa rising than Asia-in-Africa rising. It is just a new form of dependence. How long will it last? It all depends on how the Chinese(and increasingly Indians)and Afrian elites can tolerate one another.
One of your best articles yet.
Thanks.
"And unlike European immigration the current immigration is not killing Americans en masse unlike what the white man did to the Indians so you have even less of a moral claim to stop the current mass immigration."
For people who are truly serious, this is not a moral issue. It's a power-and-survival issue. Morally, all peoples have done bad to gain power. Power is where it's really at.
People who primarily use morality for power win. People who primarily use power for morality use. Whites used to use morality to gain and justify power. Now, they muse morality to undermine their own power.
Today, whites feel a need to play fair or even punish their own kind on moral grounds(though, to be sure, rich white liberals sacrifice poorer whites while they themselves go after more wealth and power; so, a rich white libera guy will use affirmative action to award a black guy over a poor white guy and then congratulate himself for being selfless and self-sacrificing, all the while sending his own kids to prep schools and elite colleges. So, poor whites pay for the conscience of white rich liberals.)
And the Left, Jews, and blacks know this. After WWII, Nietzsche was bigger on the left than on the right(which was afraid to invoke him cuz of association with Nazism; since the left had been anti-nazi, it had no moral qualms about using his ideas.. and it all comes down to 'will to power'.)
I think globalism leads to both strip-mallism AND haute-clientele-ism.
Many American cities used to be very working class and ethnic--Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, Pittsburgh, etc--, which is to say kinda drabby and crabby. The rise of globalization did lead to a kind of Walmartization among masses of Americans, but it also produced more specialized things for the elites or wanna-be-elites.
Compare any city in the 70s with today. Though the factories may be gone, you see more haute fancy stuff for yuppie professional crowd. Yuppies, after all, are not just an economic class but a social culture. Even successful professionals in the 70s liked to go to a regular bar or to a steak house. They were like Jimmy Breslin or Mike Royko. Now, yuppies go for sushi or some fancy Italian restaurant where it would be gauche for anyone to order Lasagna or spaghetti. It'd be like a rube going to a high end Greek restaurant and order gyros or going to a fancy French restaurant and asking for French fries.
I remember Chicago downtown in the 70s. Lots of steak houses with all sorts of people, from upper middle class to regular Joes. The last time I was in Chicago, almost all of these were gone. There were lots of fast food franchises--subways everywhere--but there were a whole bunch of fancy stuff you didn't see in the 70s. All these haute restaurants catering to yuppies or trust-fund kids on just about every corner.
I recall on Barney Miller in the 70s the running joke was Japanese like to eat raw fish. That grossed us out. Now, who would laugh at such joke? Sushi is a hot item in urban life now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZrXQy2tJDw&feature=related
The 'Solutrians' were the first humans to populate the Americas.
By blood/ DNA they are most closely related to the Basques -- and their associated kin: the Irish, the Scots-Irish, the Welsh and the English.
Cortez noted in his diary that the top caste of Aztec were whiter than he was.
Further, that to his great surprise, ALL of the locals equated whiteness with the highest social rank/ almost god-hood.
The Incas claimed that their great monuments were taken by conquest -- and that they didn't build them.
Kennewick man appears to be Ainu -- which is the same blood as the Imperial family of Tokyo.
There are many abandoned ancient New World sites -- which carry legends of genocide - -of the Solutreans -- the Europeans.
-----
With anything from 5 to 7 thousand years between the European and Asiatic immigrations -- it's easy to see why the surviving Asiatics referred to their predecessors as the 'Ancient Ones.'
At any event, the discovery of strata vastly older than Beringia laden with flints in the style of Southern France entirely destroys the tales told in my youth.
It is now very apparent that the Asiatics genocided the Europeans first -- and time and again, too.
Of course, dystopia is often the product of utopianism. Multiculturalism is, for many, a kind of utopian ideal that says the best kind of community is one made up by a mosaic of many cultures. The problem of utopianism is the radicalism or purism, having absolute faith in its tenets.
The notion that cultural or ethnic mosaic can be a good thing is true enough. But that doesn't mean more and more will make things even better.
Salt and pepper liven up a dish, but that doesn't mean one should dump the entire shaker of salt and pepper into one's soup. Mushrooms are good on pizza, but one shouldn't top his pizza with a pound of mushrooms.
So, while some degree of diversity may indeed be good for a nation, it doesn't follow that MORE AND MORE will make things better and better, nor does it mean that ANY KIND OF DIVERSITY is equally good. Having Armenians(despite their problem with crime)in your community is preferable to having lots of Somalis(many of whom are simply hopeless).
A stable community needs to be united at the core and diverse at the edges. It's like in any solar system, you have the sun at the center and planets revolving around it. But multiculturalism says there should be no sun-culture in any nation since all cultures must be seen as of equal value. But can there be a solar system with ONLY planets? Without the gravitational pull of the sun, what will keep all those planets together as a group? So, the more multiculturalism eats away at core homogeneity of a nation in the radical pursuit of utopianism, the more it undermines the very force that allows it to work at all. In Yugoslavia, the communist party functioned as a kind of ideological sun holding all the different cultures together. But once the ideology--which is never as powerful as tribalism in the long run--faded, the various ethic groups refused to remain together and turned to fighting one another. If Yugoslavia had been 80%Serb and the rest made up of various non-serbs, it might have remained as one nation. But no single ethnic group could claim to the majority or main group of the nation, and so Yugoslavia fell apart.
Though America is ethnically diverse, most non-Anglo whites had, over time, been Anglo-Americanized--and even non-whites aspired to this model.
Obama and his liberal Jewish handlers even say America is NOT a Christian nation. In a strictly legal sense, they are right. American citizenship is not about church membership. It's also true that America is not ONLY A CHRISTIAN NATION. But given its history, demographics, culture, and values, it would be absurd to say Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam have been of equal value or importance as Christianity in America. They could be in the future depending on what Hindu-Americans and Muslim-Americans do or contribute, but in terms of what has historically happened so far, America is indeed a Christian nation. But, we are not supposed to say that and indeed we are supposed to keep de-Christianizing and de-Christmasing America as much as possible.
With that gone, I guess the only thing that really holds us together is pop culture and music. White, black, yellow, brown, or pink, they all seem to be hooked to stuff like Lady Gaga and TRANSFORMERS. But then, so are kids all over the world, so what does that mean?
Also, there's the thing with multi-subculturalism. On facebook, for example, there are so many 'pages' about all sorts of interests. They constitute a whole constellation of 'cultures' and 'mini-cultures' that divide people. But, I suppose everyone feels part of the Facebook nation or Facebook village. They may not share in the same product or interest but they share in the same process and networking.
Some say diversity will eventually lead to more conflicts and tensions, but maybe hyper-diversity(or hypersity)has an opposite effect. Yugoslavia was torn by ethnic conflict because there were several ethnic groups: Slovenians, Croatians, Serbians, Muslims, Albanians. So, each group could generate sufficient cultural critical mass to come together as a political force. Also, each ethnic group occupied a chunk of land to which they could claim roots(and ancient rights). The conflicts occurred mainly in areas where both or various sides disagreed as to which side had historical right to the land.
Now, suppose Yugoslavia had not just several but multitudinous ethnic groups, with each group having no particular sacred or historical rights--or roots--to the land. Instead of 4 or 5 major groups with ancient claims on the land, suppose there were 100 ethnic groups in Yugoslavia. There may be conflict, but it cannot escalate into anything like the Yugoslavian war since no side is big enough to constitute sufficient force and no side has any particular claim to the land.
If Hitler had been born into a German community in Brazil, it would have been pointless for him to speak of German nationalism.
And this seems to be the plan for America. By defining America as a 'nation of immigrants' than 'nation of discoverers and settlers', it sends the message that NO GROUP in America has any special claim to this country. Anglos may have came earlier but they were simply early immigrants who paved the way for other immigrants. Like the gypsies say to the French in HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME(Charles Laughton version), 'you came yesterday, we come today'. I don't know if that line is in Hugo's novel(as I haven't read it), but it suits multiculturalists very well. No nation especially belongs to any people. All people are immigrants in any nation; they just happened to come earlier(and must make room for new immigrants).
After many decades of 'nation of immigrants' mantra, white peole feel no special claim to America. They feel, 'since we arrived as immigrants, we must welcome new immigrants since nothing is more American than immigration'.
It might as well be called
immig-Nation.
Of course one could argue that the Anglos didn't just arrive earlier in America but founded, created, built, and shaped the nation from scratch. In contrast, later immigrants arrived to partake of what the Anglos had founded and created in the first place. But that would privilege Wasps(and waspized Americans)over others--even the Jews--, and so we can't have that kind of 'racist' talk. This is why the Left focus on early Anglos as genociders, slavers, and etc. That way, wasps have little to be proud of in their founding and creating of America. Instead, Anglos are branded with the Original Sin of America: slavery and genocide.
So, the only way to wash away that dirty stain is to allow more 'anti-racist' immigration of non-whites in what was once an overwhelmingly white America(overwhelmingly white only due to 'racist' policies that favored whites and Europeans over others.)
Anyway, if hypersity takes over America more and more and if each group identifies itself as a 'rootless immigrant' group than as one with special claim on this country, there may be less possibility for the kind of conflict that flared up in Yugoslavia or Rwanda. If there are 100s of different kinds of Americans, and if they have no roots in this country, it would mean they are all 'immigrants'; no side has the right to say, 'this is OUR land'; but then, EVERYONE can say 'this is my land'. That being the case, who is anyone to say NO to all the people who wanna come to the US.
Even so, some might say that US is fracturing into several main groups. Though US took in immigrants from 100s of nations, there seem to be 5 main power groups: whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and maybe asians. But whites are still somewhat divided by ethnicity(and regionally and especially ideologically). And Hispanic unity may exist on the political level but not culturally or very deeply. Mexicans don't see eye to eye with Cubans and Puerto Ricans. And how close are Hindus, Chinese, Filippinos, etc, etc to one another in the Asian-American community? (Though with huge numbers of Chinese and Indians coming to the US, 'Asian-American' may eventually come to mean either Chinese-American or Hindu-American.)
So, even if there are 4 or 5 major macro-identities in America, each of those identity is a form of hypersity than diversity; it's SO diverse that most groups would not dare to try to take control of the nation and claim it as their own: as Serbians did in Serbia or Croatians did in Croatia. Instead, each group would likely adopt the game theory where all sides get something but no side gets everything or most things. With no side seeking domination, there may be less likely for violence. A Serbian guy may fight for Serbian power in Serbia or parts of Bosnia, but a Serbian-American will only try to maintain his own Serbian-Americanness. There is a good chance of Serbs ruling Serbia and parts of Bosnia, but NO CHANCE of Serbians gaining domination in the US. If all groups in the US feel likewise, hypersity may lead to less violence or only limited violence. Blacks riot and loot in America but don't try to take over the whole country as they've done in South Africa. They don't have the numbers.
There are some mostly white states where some people of secession, but the most populous states are too diverse to agree to any kind of secession to create a new nation.
There is also hypersity of subculture and pop culture, which for many young peole is their main form of cultural identity or loyalty. There is comicon nation, videogame nut nation, star trek nation, Lady Gaga nation, black metal nation, hip hop nation, and etc. And many of these 'loyalties' overlap. A guy who's crazy about star wars may also be crazy about star trek and Lady gaga and graphic novels and rap music and etc. So, he belongs to many pop-nations or sub-nations. Not only is there a hypersity of peoples, there is a hypersit of identities in each person(especially with rise of post-modernism and the internet; our attentions and loyalties are like those things in a slot machine: ever changing and rarely aligning identically; this is especially true with libertarians who are all over the board politically). Culturally, it used to be some people were into high culture, some were into middle culture, some were into low culture. Or some were into classical and some were into jazz and some were into pop. Now, it's cool for someone to like and be a part of just about everything. It means it's cool to be for everything from Bach to Lady Gaga and from hamburger & fries to sushi and from French art cinema to latest Hollywood blockbuster. And via New Age, one can be Christian, Buddhist, Kabbala, Hindu, Muslim, and pagan all at the same time.
So, it seems the ideal among globalists is to have 100s of rootless immigrant groups in the US and for each person to have 100s of different(mostly ever-changing-and-shifting pop)identities, from high and low, from white to black, from gay to straight, and etc.
It would be kind of a UNIDISUNITY, where hyper-diverse peoples paradoxically feel united in their disunity. "I'm rootless and different from you and you're rootless and different from him and he's rootless and different from her... and etc, so we are all same in being different from one another." It's like everyone is a Joseph K who has finally found his home in AmeriKa.
Yet, American loyalty to Israel--the support of the need for a JEWISH STATE--indicates that there is a kind of suppressed nationalism in many of us. Since it's politically incorrect to say, 'America is the land of MY people', one's territorialist impulses are projected onto Israel. Even if white people may lose America, they feel rooted in the world(and all is not lost)if Jews are rooted in Israel and maintain it as a Jewish state.
Modern Israel is a strange creature for it's seen as the product of three different narratives:
1. Immigration narrative. According to this narrative, European Jews sought to immigrate to Palestine and live as good neighbors alongside Arabs, but vicious and vile 'antisemitic' Arabs didn't welcome Jewish immigrants with open arms. So, Jews had to fight back for their immigrant rights. This narrative suggests that Palestinians had been like the 'racist' white Americans of yesteryear who had limited non-white immigration. Palestinians refused to share their land with Jewish immigrants, and so Jewish immigrants had to take harsh measures to teach Arabs a lesson.
2. Conquest narrative. This says Jewish 'racist-imperialist' Zionists conquered the land of Palestinians with the help of great imperialist powers--US and USSR--and created a nation of their own. Though Jews don't like this narrative, it's fashionable on much of the Left as a form of criticism.
It's also fashinable on some of the Christian Right, but as a form of praise. Some white people still relish the narrative of Western peoples(of Jews are seen as one)kicking swarthy non-white ass and gaining domination; it's like cowboys and Indians, or like the final crusade to win back the Holy Land(for both Jews and the Christian West)from those lowly 'Muzzies'.
3. Reclaiming one's sacred territory. This makes the whole issue of Israel especially tricky. Unlike European imperialists who conquered the non-white world, Jews do have an ancient claim on the Holy Land. Besides, Jews weren't expelled by ancient Palestinians but by ancient Romans, a white people.
If moving to America is seen as immigrating to the future, moving to Israel is seen as immigration into the past.
This way, Jews play the most multi-faceted role in all of this... as both the most ancient and most rooted people(in Israel)AND as the most modern and rootless people(in America). Whatever Jews push, Zionism or cosmopolitanism, we give them endless applause just like Congressmen before Netanhayu.
I'm writing from memory, but his story of early settlements in New England helped convince me that North America was fairly heavily populated by organized, but still Stone Age, Indians. The French tried to establish a colony in New England in the 1500s, but it didn't succeed because there were too many Indians around. The Indians told the Pilgrims that there used to be more of them, but plagues wiped them out. Didn't that happen to Squanto's people? And one way that the Pilgrim got through the winter was stealing corn from graves. The reason the graves weren't protected was that the people that would protect them were dead.
Silver:
"Kwitcherbitchin"
I'm not b*tching. Recognize the difference between pointing out something and b*tching.
"Why are you here?"
As a Korean, Steve massages my high IQ ego. And I like banging the heads of low IQ white racists. Plus I have a lot of gap time in front of my computer. Gud enuff?
And one more, thing. Poke you in the eyes for your quaint little insult. I would if you were really in front of me.
Africa is NOT rising. Some sectors--mainly raw materials--in certain African nations are rising, and so the GDP figures look impressive, but there is no real progress in political and social areas. Also, Africans are dependent on Chinese not only for extraction of raw materials but for building all the roads and hospitals, and etc.
This is not real progress. It is less Africa rising than Asia-in-Africa rising. It is just a new form of dependence. How long will it last? It all depends on how the Chinese(and increasingly Indians)and Afrian elites can tolerate one another.
I disagree that it's not "real" progress. How many African governments are marxist nowadays? If they've gotten rid of marx, that's progress, and just one example of it.
Natural resources play a prominent role in African economies but the rise in resources also has ripple effects throughout the rest of the economy and society. That's just the process of "growth" at work; maybe by calling it "not real" you mean it's "not enough." Maybe it won't be enough in the long run but you have to start somewhere. And it all adds up to your assertion, "Africa is "falling," being incorrect.
Silver
so you have even less of a moral claim to stop the current mass immgration.
We hardly need a moral claim to stop immigration.
Hacienda:"As a Korean, Steve massages my high IQ ego."
Aha. So the Mexicans were just proxies. Good to know.
So, the real thrust of your argument is: imagine America with more Koreans. Well, I would gladly substitute every Mexican immigrant to America with a Korean in a heartbeat.
Post a Comment