Culturism and Slavery

This court case concerning the nature of what is slavery, yes you read correctly is occurring right now in Australia.

It's hard to believe that a court would have trouble defining "SLAVERY" but there you have it, the law has been challenged.

I'm not concerned about the legal in and outs of this case. Leave that to the legal profession.
What triggers my interest is the significance of importing other cultures into our own. We often talk of multi-culturism in the positive sense. We are always trying to bend over backwards to accommodate the alien values of other cultures in an attempt to exhibit our open mindedness and tolerance as virtues of a civilized society.

What this case brings to our attention is this, a practice of bonded servitude which has gone on for centuries in other cultures without raising an eyebrow in those other culture is now imported into Australia.

What is significant is that it instead of there being a clear cut notion that this practice of bonded servitude (slavery) is contrary to the values we have become accustomed to in our country and now we face a challenge to those values in the High Court.

Further articles on Culturism can be found here http://culturismnews.blogspot.com/

Burn Baby Burn

Offensive to Muslims

Check out this link for a more detailed but not complete list of what is offensive to Muslims.

http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Things-That-Offend-Muslims.htm

1. Mohammed cartoons
2. Three Little Pigs
3. Piggy banks
4. Italian sport uniforms (big red cross on white T shirt)
5. Taoist statue
6. Jewish cookies
7. Apple store resembles the Muslims' sacred Ka'ba
8. Flags
9. Movies/theatre/radio
10. Music
11. Alcohol
12. hot cross buns
13. Easter eggs
14. Ham sandwiches
15. coca cola
16. ice cream cones
17. pork
18. Guide dogs
19. the clitoris
20. public displays of affection
21. Breast feeding
22. male gynaecologists
23. haircuts for men
24. Chess
25. the Holocaust
26. buying of cats and dogs banned in Saudi Arabia (because they were paraded in public and dogs are unclean)
27. human rights
28. criticizing Islam
29. mocking Islam
30. Christmas
31. preaching Christianity
32. building churches
33. Teddy bears named Mohammed

This list is by far from complete. By the very nature of how Muslims see “offense” it can never be complete.

I can imagine those PC people falling over themselves to prevent anything from offending Muslims.

It is ludicrous to try to accommodate Muslim sensibilities within a western society because of the possibilities for “offending” them.

The idea of assimilation is not on the Muslim immigrant agenda.

What isn’t funny in the least is that within an Islamic state, such as Saudi Arabia, the penalty for offending Muslims (Islam) is jail and possibly a death sentence.

Now consider that anything, absolutely anything we consider to be completely innocuous may be construed as offensive to Muslims

The culture of honor killings

Immigration has effects that can never be fully predicted or comprehended. There is the obvious implications when Muslims appear in a community for the first time. The sight of women wearing a burkah in the streets sends a chill down the spine as well as triggering sniggers and surprise. Similarly, there are suburbs where a mass influx of Vietnamese or Sudanese will ruffle the feathers of those of us who have so far been comfortable to the sight of strange and different faces and clothing.

These are obvious changes brought about by immigration of foreign cultures. What isn't so obvious is unseen facet of the immigrant groups, their culture.
As much as some aspects of a foreign culture are self evident, others are hidden and only surface when there are victims of violence.
Up to 17,000 women in Britain are being subjected to "honour" related violence, including murder, every year, according to police chiefs. (see link)

Those who still cling to the noble concept of multi-culturalism probably don't spend much time contemplating the culture of domestic violence that is the result of honor killings.

Culturism - a book by John Kenneth Press

Culturism – A review of the book by John Kenneth Press

When I first read of the idea of Culturism, it struck me like a bolt of lightning. Of course, everything made sense, here was a word and a concept “Culturism” I had been struggling to define whenever my thoughts turned to multiculturalism.

“Multiculturalism robs us of the authority to protect our culture”

As I read brief passages from each chapter of the book, I couldn’t help but keep repeating to myself, “of course, of course of course” it just all made perfect sense.

JKP’s book concerns itself to culturism in America but it’s concepts can be applied universally.

Within the context of America, JKP identifies the origins of American Culturism as emerging from the Puritan ethic.

The first section on the Puritan ethic was a new concept to me.

Reading this section wasn’t so much an “of course” experience as much as a steep learning curve It is an aspect of American history that I have not much familiarity..

The Puritan theme is used to tie together the notion of Culturism and American culture.

JKP explains the ideas that gave birth to multiculturalism in anthropology. Margaret Mead has a lot to answer for.

“There is no objective basis upon which to say that one culture is better than another. Were our way of life inherently more satisfying than others, Western culturism would not be needed. The triumph of cultures dedicated to rights and efficiency would be just a matter of waiting for natural practices to occur. Anthropology shows that people are accustomed to endure long suffering before changing directions. In fact, inefficiency and pain being bad reflects Western assumptions. Female genital mutilation is not naturally resented by those in the cultures that practice it. Our existence offers others a choice that can result in a negative evaluation. But such an evaluation is not apparent. Indigenous practices offer us choices. Maintaining our unique values keeps the greatest worldwide variety of choices available.”

So what is JKP getting at? Nothing less than the need to understand that our culture, are values are not self – evident as they may appear to us and especially not to other cultures.

“Culturism holds that dominant cultures should celebrate and protect themselves. From the Western vantage point, headhunting and female genital mutilation are ugly and reprehensible. Culturists realize, however, that this is a Western bias. This is a very difficult realization for Westerners. We love our values. These practices are repugnant to us. But they are only repugnant to us. There are different variants of Culturism. Yanomami have a right to their culture. Western Culturism is for the Western nations. We are not the world. We need not celebrate child genital mutilation inside of our borders as this is not a Western practice. But if we wish others to respect our right to define ourselves, we must be willing to respect other’s right to define themselves.”

It is JKP’s message that our culture needs to be defended if it is to survive.

“Internationally, anthropologists will tell you, promoting “human rights” means promoting the modern Western lifestyle. It is wrong and arrogant for us to tell the Koreans that they cannot preference Korean values and persons in their laws. When you outlaw headhunting, you outlaw a way of life. To go to the Middle East and insist that they adopt separation of church and state or China and say that they must have democracy is unacceptable. It would be as if they were to come into Western countries and told us to start shooting psychedelics in our noses every day. Cultures are diverse. Culturists appreciate diversity (know that it is their bias that prevents them from doing so when they cannot) and do not advocate forcing foreign cultures to adopt variants of Western values.

Western style ideals of justice are not universal. For example when a member of one Northwest Native American tribe died, they did not mourn. Instead they would go out and make someone else mourn. Famed anthropologist Ruth Benedict wrote about this taking place when a female of a tribe died. No one knew how she died. Having left and not come back, she could have still been alive. That was not important. They were sad that she was gone. As custom dictated the men went searched until they found some strangers sleeping. They killed everyone including two children. They had transferred their sad feeling to someone else.”

Most significant is the western notion of Justice.

JKP uses many examples of practices of other cultures to drive home the point that there is no room in our culture for multiculturalism when multiculturalism threatens the values that we take for granted.

“There is no universal idea of justice. Western Justice exists, but other senses of right and wrong exist independently. Knowing about both Western and other standards of appropriateness is useful. If we want to judge the Puritans, for example, we can condemn them for their witch burnings. But we must realize that our condemnation is invoking Western, not universal, standards. The Jalé of New Guinea regularly had festivals where they ate those they had killed in war. They would close the eyes, mouth and nose with bat bones to keep the spirits in and then eat. When we compare the puritans, using Western standards, to the diverse spectrum of possibilities that exist their transgressions seem pretty tame.”

.The false notion that we have accepted in that all cultures are equal.

. “Our having adopted the multiculturalist creed that our culture is not special may be dangerous. If you inculcate the idea that your culture is inherently evil in comparison with others for a couple of generations you should not expect people to be naturally civilized. You may find people unwilling and unable to defend our progressive and peace loving civilization from internal or external attack.”

JKP points out the myth of the noble savage, invented by Rousseau. This myth has developed to include the belief that indigenous cultures were caretakers of their environment whilst immigrant cultures destroyed and pillaged the environment.

Very much the same ideas are in the book The Future Eaters by Tim Flannery.

“…the naïve belief that indigenous were great environmental stewards does not help; it undermines our sense of efficacy.”

“Native Americans were not careful to preserve the environment at a cost to themselves. Two-thirds of the large mammals present when humans first arrived in North America were driven to extinction by the time the whites got here. Eighty percent of the large animals in South America and seventy three percent of those in North America were wiped out before the Europeans arrived. It is not possible to tell which extinctions were due to climate changes. But the animals having survived for hundreds of thousands of years and then disappearing after the arrival of humans lends credence to the common sense conjecture that human action must have contributed to the extinctions. “

“The Anasazi and their neighbors occupied much of what are now the states of Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. Because of forests a dense population was able to survive there. Because of dense populations, the forests were not able to survive there. The areas the Anasazi occupied now provide that look of barren expanse that serves as a background in cowboy movies. That barrenness is due the natives having deforested the area. When they had undermined their ability to feed themselves they descended into warfare and cannibalism. By the time Columbus arrived in the New World, the area had its present look and was filled with abandoned archeological sites.”

“The Maoris of New Zealand drove a dozen species of large birds to extinction six centuries before the first Westerner got there. The heavily forested Middle East was turned into a desert by agriculturists well before the Western expansion. The Mayans likely undermined themselves ecologically”

. So the subtle message which JKP presents very gently, in a restrained voice is that western culture is under threat from Islamic culture.

“Islamic culture, for example, does not hold that the rights to wear and say what you want are self-evident. Much of the Muslim world sees it as moral to kill women who dishonor their families. Killing to impose religious uniformity is something Muslim cultures celebrate and their governments support. Even when we had a considerable economic and technological advantage over China, the Chinese did not think freedom of speech, religion and assembly worth adopting. Now that our dominance over them has diminished we should not assume that they will suddenly join us as an enclave of unfettered individualism. “

The call to Culturism is to awaken us to the very qualities that make our culture unique and worthy of protecting. If we do not protect our culture then we will inevitably lose what we cherish.

“Our tolerating subculture and dissent makes us unique. Much of the world suppresses dissent. We allow little ‘nations’ inside of our nation. Much of the world does not like having diversity in their neighborhood. They are heavy handed culturists. Islamic states do not take kindly to apostates. China does not like protesters. Nigeria does not tolerate either. The traditional reactions to those whose behavior deviated from the norms in any way have been exile, exorcism and death. Our level of tolerance and protection are not universally endorsed virtues. Ignorance of these facts is not inconsequential. We trade our sense of mission for a sense of apathy when we fail to realize just how distinctive the West is. “

There is a lot more food for thought in this book of which I have highlighted what to me is the core message. I wholeheartedly recommend it to everybody.

Multi - culturalism

Continuing with my theme borrowed from John Kenneth Press's blog, here is a quote about the effects of multi-culturalism.
Putnam's recent study on diversity involved nearly 30,000 people in 41 communities. He found that the more diverse neighborhoods are the less social capital they create. People in diverse communities volunteer less, give to charity less, vote less and work on less community projects. The simple fact is that people do not trust people they share little in common with.

Now, this research seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom (as JKGalbraith would phrase it). We all accept that multi-culturalism adds diversity and flavor to a community, doesn't it? So a more diverse community (diverse culturally) results in a more fragmented and insular community rather than a stronger community. Interesting proposition isn't it?

Culturism

Are you a culturist? (As opposed to a multi-culturist)

Take the test below and then go to the site linked here.

Are You a Culturist?

Do you believe that cultural diversity includes some behaviors even multiculturalists might not like?

Do you believe that race and culture are different?

Do you believe that Western ideals are in competition with other ideals and could lose?

Do you believe that it is essential for citizens to learn about our heroic history and culturist traditions?

Do you believe that cultures are so diverse that some might send more desirable immigrants than others?

Do you believe that we have a right to choose who comes into our country?

Do you believe that a culture’s belief system might be so influential that profiling people of some cultures could be rational?

Do you believe that self-government includes the right to collectively guide the direction of society?

Do you believe that we should discourage anti-social behavior and promote positive behavior?

Do you believe that defining, protecting and promoting our culture should be a legitimate policy consideration?

If you believe in any or all of these ideals . . .

YOU MIGHT BE A CULTURIST!!!

Western Civilization exists

The phrase, “a nation of nations” contains a logical error. This assertion is meant to indicate that the United States has no traditional or dominant culture. It is an assertion that America is at core a cultureless blank slate. The logical flaw results from the fact that not having a culture would make us unique as a nation. No other nation would make the claim that they are a nation without a core culture. If nothing else, that that claim could be made, should prove to people that we have a core culture. You cannot assert that we are a “nation of nations” without simultaneously saying that we have a special and particular national culture.

One reason for this confusion is that we, falsely, take our culture to be the universal default for humanity. But as we saw in the previous chapter, many diverse ways of life and value systems have thrived. Our culture is but one of many. Our culture neither makes decisions based on shamanistic journeys nor wears the skins of sacrificial victims. We consider the first as irrational and the second grotesque. These judgments come so naturally to us that we do not see them as culturally specific. But in the post 9 -11 world it should be apparent to us that not every culture shares our values.

Islamic culture, for example, does not hold that the rights to wear and say what you want are self-evident. Much of the Muslim world sees it as moral to kill women who dishonor their families. Killing to impose religious uniformity is something Muslim cultures celebrate and their governments support. Even when we had a considerable economic and technological advantage over China, the Chinese did not think freedom of speech, religion and assembly worth adopting. Now that our dominance over them has diminished we should not assume that they will suddenly join us as an enclave of unfettered individualism.

Much confusion over our version of life being universal is born of the fact that the demands of large states create pressures to adopt some common institutions. Governments and schools are a part of all countries. But both the Aztecs and NAZI Germany were states. Similarity in institutions still leaves room for quite a bit of diversity. Furthermore, history shows us that nations not only come into being, but dissolve. Nowadays states that are dissolving are doing so based on claims of cultural distinctions. Statewide claims of hegemony that exist are very often very thin. Many states are more aspirations than realities. It is questionable how much control Afghanistan’s government has outside of the capitol city of Kabul. Western style enforcement of values peace and rights do not represent eternal truths. They have only existed for a little time, under certain conditions, in some areas.

Rights, as we understand them, currently exist in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada. These areas are the core areas of Western values. Democracy and rights have tenuous grips in Latin America and Eastern Europe. These areas may become more Western with time. They may revert to their more traditional modes of existence. Tribal and religious intolerance, irrationality and crude oppression have sway over much of the rest of the world. Some areas outside of the Western core areas are thriving. Many perceive the Western core areas as not doing so well. Asia sees this as an affirmation of their right to dominate us. Much of Islam sees this as signifying an opportunity to destroy us.

Our tolerating subculture and dissent makes us unique. Much of the world suppresses dissent. We allow little ‘nations’ inside of our nation. Much of the world does not like having diversity in their neighborhood. They are heavy handed culturists. Islamic states do not take kindly to apostates. China does not like protesters. Nigeria does not tolerate either. The traditional reactions to those whose behavior deviated from the norms in any way have been exile, exorcism and death. Our level of tolerance and protection are not universally endorsed virtues. Ignorance of these facts is not inconsequential. We trade our sense of mission for a sense of apathy when we fail to realize just how distinctive the West is.

Read the whole book here.

Culture, tradition and stupidity

There is a video on MEMRI TV, video number 1501, of the story of a girl that died after having circumcision.
The mother is questioned as to the reason for wanting to circumcise her daughter.
The answer is, it's always been done, the neighbours do it.

It's not a religious obligation. It's just culture. When I rant about how much I hate culture, this is exactly what I'm referring to. Not opera, not ballet, not literature. Culture as mindless tradition, doing something because it's always been done.

Culture

In my last post, I made a sweeping generalization against "culture". BEAJ, pointed out to me that in my statement, I failed to appreciate the benefits of Western culture.

This got me thinking.

"Culture" has many meanings and in my statement, I was thinking very specifically of certain cultures which place much emphasis on symbolism, have a core set of values that are incompatible with the notion of everybody being equal and having equal rights.
I was thinking of cultures that are steeped in tradition and superstitions and have close associations to a religion. I was thinking of cultures that store values in symbolism without giving any thought to rationalist thinking.

My apologies for being vague in my statements.

Indians and culture

Everybody knows that Indians will torch a wife who doesn't have an adequate dowry, and the incidence of girl infanticide in India is so great that there is a dire shortage of females for the males to marry.
Nevertheless, I am still surprised by the latest news story of a grandmother dumped at the local rubbish tip.
The fact that she was still alive and kicking didn't come into the families considerations.

God forbid anyone suggest this has anything to do with race, not me!

It's in fact all to do with that wonderful thing known as "culture" which is the cousin of religion.
I despise culture even more than I abhor religion.

Multiculturalism, your time is up.

Another gem from my favorite commentator, Janet Albrechtsen, this time articulating my thoughts on those pesky "minorities" and their unreasonable demands. It seems that the country that gave birth to Multiculturalism, Canada, has finally drawn the line (enough is enough).

To understand this fertile debate, you need to dip into Canada’s multicultural chronicles. A Montreal YMCA agrees to frost the windows of a room used for exercise classes so that teenage boys at a neighbouring synagogue will be saved the indignity of glimpsing Lycra-clad women doing Pilates and aerobics classes. An Ontario judge orders the removal of a Christmas tree from the entrance to a Toronto court to avoid offending non-Christian sensibilities.

The Supreme Court overturns a Quebec school board’s ban on Sikh students wearing a kirpan - a ceremonial metal dagger - to school because it infringes a boy’s religious freedom. Female police officers in Montreal are requested to let their male counterparts deal with Orthodox Jews who find it offensive to be touched by a female. A Filipina mother complains to the Quebec Human Rights Commission about her son being chided at school for the way he eats. The school said they were targeting bad manners. The mother said it was the traditional Filipino way of eating. And on and on it goes.

Against that background, a small town in Quebec caused quite a stir last month by issuing a set of standards so newcomers understand “the social life and habits and customs” of life in their new country.

The provocative statement issued by Herouxville says that a “woman can drive a car, vote, sign cheques, dance, decide for herself, speak her piece, dress as she sees fit ... walk alone in public places, study, have a job ... However, we consider that killing women in public beatings or burning them alive are not part of our standards of life.”

The statement explains that townsfolk listen to music, drink alcohol and decorate Christmas trees. Boys and girls play games together, men and women ski on the same hill, and “if you came to my place we would send the kids to swim together in the pool”.

“Don’t be surprised, this is normal for us,” the declaration says. It seems that Herouxville, a town with no migrants but in need of immigration, has been watching events unfold in Europe. Mayor Claude Dupont told one newspaper that the standards are “saying out loud what some people are thinking quietly but don’t have the balls to say”.

But when a small town in Quebec does the talking, it is depicted as insular, racist hicksville by Canada’s left-leaning media. When respected academics such as Francis Fukuyama say more or less the same thing, even keen multiculturalists will slowly nod their heads and concede there may be something to this argument about realigning the unruly rights debate. Writing in the Journal of Democracy last year, Fukuyama pointed out that “some contemporary Muslim communities are making demands for group rights that simply cannot be squared with liberal principles of individual equality” on which Western societies are built. The kinds of accommodation include demands for sharia law, or at least Islamic family law, the right to exclude non-Muslims from certain types of events or the right to challenge free speech in a pluralist society, he explained.

With impeccable timing the Danish cartoons are back, once again raising the issue of just how far we extend the alleged right not to be offended. Satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which published the notorious Danish cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed, was in court last week defending itself against three Muslim organisations claiming “injury caused by religious slander”. French presidential candidate and Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy weighed into the case, issuing a letter supporting the newspaper for expressing “an old French tradition, that of satire, derision and disobedience”.

Sarkozy’s defence of his country’s mores was a stark contrast to the cultural cannibalism across the Channel where a 19-year-old student at Cambridge University went into hiding earlier this month after publishing an offensive cartoon of the Muslim prophet in a special edition of a student magazine on religious satire. The student is facing the prospect of disciplinary action by university authorities.

Whether you’re with Sarkozy or the Cambridge authorities on this, two things are pretty clear. No right, whether group or individual, is absolute or unconditional. Even the right to life is qualified: think abortion, killing in war or self-defence. So assertions that a prisoner has some right to be given halal meat in jail - as child sex offender Sharif Mahommed claimed and won in a Queensland court recently - is just as much poppycock as saying that in Western societies Mormons have an inalienable right to polygamy or Muslims have a right to practise female circumcision. Societies can, do and should set limits and conditions on alleged rights.

The second certainty flows from the first. Fuelled by the human rights industry, requests for accommodation are framed as rights. And because what is often claimed as a right is really no more than an individual society deciding to accommodate requests from minorities, these are essentially political, not legal, questions. Whether a municipality should pay for a women’s-only swimming pool so Muslim women are not forced to share the water with lubricious males should be decided by elected representatives of the people, not by judges.

Instead, the courts get to play umpire. Last week, the head teacher of a high-achieving grammar school in Birminghamshire was dragged into court for not allowing one of her students to wear the full-face veil - or niqab - in the classroom. The school policy allows girls to wear the hijab - or head scarf - but drew the line at the niqab.

Shakespeare a Muslim

I was extremely concerned by Schlemazl's comments that maybe Shakespeare might be the next victim of Muslim outrage until I found out that Shakespeare has the seal of approval by an islamic scholar.
Rest assured that Western culture and civilization is still safe. Of course, music and dancing might be the next target of outrage as we all know, music leads to dancing and dancing leads to lincentious sex.

Mozart Opera cancelled

I'm sorry for harping on a theme but the world news doesn't give me any respite.
This is the latest news from Germany where sensitivities to Muslim outrage have resulted in the cancelling of Mozart Opera.

Meanwhile, in Muslim countries Christian churches are attacked, Christians are killed, Christians are harassed, and there is not a sqeak of protest, not a skerrick of outrage anywhere.

Hum Ho, bury our heads in the sand, and like the three wise monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil.

Thoughts

Here's something to contemplate.
A free society prides itself on it's tolerance of diversity, freedom of speech and freedom of expression and thought.
We are so magnanimous that we let foreign cultures into our country.
We are so self conscious that we banned any reference to Christmas so we wouldn't offend our new immigrants.
We let them put up Mosques in our neighbourhoods to pray to their god.
We bend over backwards to accomodate their code of dress and modesty.
We look away at crimes of violence against their women and pretend it never happened.
We castigate ourselves for crimes committed by fanatical terrorists, if only we didn't do this or that to upset them.
We censor ourselves when our sense of humor is found to be objectionable to their sensitivities.
We cringe at accusations of "racism" when we dare to put a label on the nature of the problem.
We cower at threats of violence against us because we are what they hate.
We plead for tolerance and understanding while they preach hate and destruction.
We mock those who warn us of the inevitable doomsday to come.
We perpetuate the myth of a Peace Loving Religion when it's exponents blow themselves up with countless innocent victims.
We create artificial categories to conveniently exonerate the "majority" as opposed to the "violent extremists".
We ignore the deafening silence that lingers when we expect to hear a condemnation by the "peaceful majority" of the "violent extremists".
What are we waiting for?

Danger Warning

We all know how hazardous life can be in modern times. Children are always just a hairs breath away from fatal injury when near a stove, they might pour boiling liquid on themselves. All chemicals in bottles have warning labels telling us not to drink the liquid, and worse of all, children can't read these labels. Playgrounds have been deemed danger zones that a too hazardous for children, they might fall off the equipment and hurt themselves. Our government has legistlated many years ago for helmets to be compulsory attire when riding a pushbike. There are strict laws that specify all swimming pools must be fenced off to protect the children from drowning. Fireworks were banned many years ago because children were injuring themselves with those pesky little explosives. But worse, much worse than this is the danger of throwing eggs. That's right, scientific research has been conducted to prove, and to warn the unsuspecting public that throwing of eggs can lead to blindness. But even worse than this, even more dangerous than this the humble doormat has been labelled a health hazard. Warning, danger, beware there are hazards at every turn, trees have been known to leap out and hit cars for no reason at all. I'm staying home today, I'm not going to work, it's too dangerous.