ORIGIN OF POST-MODERNISM SOUGHT
Ralph Hertle
Didn't Objectivist and psychological theorist, Nathaniel
Branden, first conceive the notion that we now know to be
Post Modernism? Branden identified the concept of Social
Metaphysics. Of course, Emanuel Kant's, Hegel's,
Augustine's, and Plato's ideas are, in order of causation,
are the base of Post Modernism. Branden called the idea
Social Metaphysics meaning that other people's
consciousness, their ideas and evaluations regarding one's
self, were to be considered to be reality to be reckoned
with, not factual objective reality. The modern Post
Modernists infused with empiricism believe that any
conveyance of ideas is the truth, and, hence, they accept
the Pragmatist idea that, "anything goes", or, "whatever".
The Post Modernists support the idea that social acceptance,
pressure, and social pressure are the source of truth an
authority. Especially, governmental authority. Forget
individual identity in the arts - forget beauty in the arts.
Authorized social dictates govern all in Post Modernism.
And, didn't Thorstein Veblen identify the "other directed
individual" as one of the ideal operative types of
personalities in the society of the 1950s?
In architecture students still revere Philip Johnson to be
the chief promoter of Post Modernism in architecture. The
notion was, of course, the product of Johnson's public
relations and sales promotion program. Johnson was
successful beyond belief. Johnson, we may recall, copied the
architectural theories and esthetic architectural style of
the architect-genius, Mies van der Rohe. Johnson copied
Mies's style to the letter in his college masters thesis
design project, and he became famous. Johnson designed and
built more buildings than Mies did in his entire career.
Johnson was, of course, a con man. Johnson had no esthetic
purposes of his own. He cashed in on the artistic creations
and purposes created by other architects. He was
socially-directed, not individually and personally directed.
Johnson's office has more recently switched over to what he
calls "De-Constructivism", and nobody save for some fellow
con-men know what that is. Many Post Modernist architects
yearn to be future DeConstructivists - and they further the
aims of the Johnson office and their sometimes sympathetic
clients.
Who created Post-Modernism, and what is it?
Ralph Hertle
neurusilo
*snip*
> Who created Post-Modernism, and what is it?
I don't think I'd buy that any one person 'created' postmodernism.
It'd be like trying to justify that Dostoyevski created Existentialism.
How very postmodern of me.
--
*************
neurusilo
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
-Beckett
"Ralph Hertle" <rhe...@att.net> wrote in message
news:197447E9...@att.net...
Joyce
>"Ralph Hertle" <rhe...@att.net> wrote
>*snip*
>> Who created Post-Modernism, and what is it?
>
>I don't think I'd buy that any one person 'created'
postmodernism.
>It'd be like trying to justify that Dostoyevski created
Existentialism.
>
>How very postmodern of me.
>
>neurusilo
>
I'm in complete agreement with you. However, the
word "postmodern" was first coined in 1917 by Rudolf Pannwitz,
who described a development of "postmodern men" who would
incorporate militarist, nationalistic, and elite values -
probably what we now know as facism (Best & Kellner, 1991, p6).
But as we also know, a radical departure postmodernism has then
took afterwards....
Joyce
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
James Whitehead
<aleesas_at...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes
>>
>I'm in complete agreement with you. However, the
>word "postmodern" was first coined in 1917 by Rudolf Pannwitz,
>who described a development of "postmodern men" who would
>incorporate militarist, nationalistic, and elite values -
>probably what we now know as facism (Best & Kellner, 1991, p6).
Toynbee in 1939" .. .. dam you beat me!
>
>But as we also know, a radical departure postmodernism has then
>took afterwards....
However in the film it will be an American!
>
--
James Whitehead
neurusilo
> I'm in complete agreement with you. However, the
> word "postmodern" was first coined in 1917 by Rudolf Pannwitz,
> who described a development of "postmodern men" who would
> incorporate militarist, nationalistic, and elite values -
> probably what we now know as facism (Best & Kellner, 1991, p6).
>
> took afterwards....
1917?! Impressive that you happen to know that. I know nothing at all
about Mr. Pannwitz, but could it fairly be said that postmodernism departed
from his views at all? Did he truly take a postition that opposed modernity
(justifying that his 'men' be called /postmodern/)? How did he arrive at
the term, and is that relevant to us (as postmodernity's children)?
If so, it would be an interesting point to further consider whereas
postmodernity is concerned.
Joyce
>1917?! Impressive that you happen to know that. I know
nothing at all
>about Mr. Pannwitz, but could it fairly be said that
postmodernism departed
>from his views at all? Did he truly take a postition that
opposed modernity
>(justifying that his 'men' be called /postmodern/)? How did he
arrive at
>the term, and is that relevant to us (as postmodernity's
children)?
>
>If so, it would be an interesting point to further consider
whereas
>postmodernity is concerned.
>
>--
>*************
>neurusilo
Actually, I made a mistake on the 1917 Pannwitz statment. To be
exact, the term FIRST appeared in 1870 by one English painter
called John Chapman, who talked of postmodern painting which is
suppose to be more avant-garde than French impressionism.
Your questions are well asked. In Pannitwitz's book, "The Crisis
of European Culture" (this is my rough guesswork from the
title "Die Krisis der europaischen Kultur"), he talked about the
nilhilism, collapse of values in contemporary Euro culture, and
hence his belief of a development of postmodern men... So my
guess is that with Pannitwitz, "postmodern" means a departure
from the decay of "values" and culture of the modernity, sort of
like an improved formula of modernity?
As for whether postmodernism believes in militarism, nationalism
and elitism, I think it is fairly clear that they don't.
Hope that answers your questions,
neurusilo
> to this a bit. As I understand it, post-modernism is like
> existentialism in that it's not just one thing started by one person.
> Post-modernism seems to be more "against" certain things than it is
> "for" certain things. For example, it's anti-epistemological, anti-
> transcendental, against "knowledge", rejects truth as corresponding to
> reality, rejects anything that is unconditionally binding for all time,
> rejects dualism of all kinds, rejects the notion of final answers and
> rejects the concept of closed explanatory systems.
> Where did it start? That's a tough one. Maybe it started with
> Wittgenstein's idea of "language-games." I first learned about it
> through Foucault then from Lyotard and Derrida. The biggest problem
> that I've got with it is the anti-this, anti-that, anti-everything
> stance. There's enough negativity in the world already. I'd like
> something to believe in, not just something to be against. Hopelessly
> old-fashioned, I know.
In many ways, the negativity currently present in the world today, is a
direct reflection of living in a postmodern world. Our "Age of Cinicism"
relfects that postmodern thought has been successful in altering the way we
view ourselves, and the world around us. To an extent, we find ourselves
quietly mourning our perceived loss of innocence (as if fashionable beliefs
truly made life any easier). Postmodernism is not truly anti-anything, so
much as it is a Grand Re-evaluation of knowledge. It is not hostile to any
grand narrative, so much as it points out that all previous grand narratives
are false (yet, we manage to invent celebrity -- go figure). On a bad day,
I am the biggest critic of postmodernism out there, but it is natural. It
had to happen. I would contend that postmodernism has effectively run its
course, but it's not the end of the road that it sometimes seems.
As far as where it came from, I approach it from the perspective of the
Arts. When capitalism shifted the seat of power from the rich to the
multitudes, the Arts found itself displaced from its place of comfort. It
resisted this shift of power, and insisted that it did not need the approval
of the mundane. A rift appeared between the Arts and society (high culture
vs. low culture, high art vs. commercialism) was created -- a war that
*quietly* rages even today. Slowly, the Arts were being replaced by lower
forms that appealed to the mainstream (pop music, Hollywood films, genre
fiction...). Postmodernism came into effect as a reaction against
'art-for-art's-sake'. It's like the old belief that a God with no
worshippers ceases to be. Art without an audience is irrelevant, no matter
how great it is. Avante-gardism attacked the notion of Art for its
self-indulgent crimes (by attacking the very meaning and value of art
itself), and in its own way, made sensational appeals toward an audience
that had long since stopped paying attention. In that manner, it had seemed
the only way to survive.
Renoncer
rhe...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> To Post Modernists:
>
> Didn't Objectivist and psychological theorist, Nathaniel
> Branden, first conceive the notion that we now know to be
I don't know if I'm a post-modernist but I guess that I can contribute
to this a bit. As I understand it, post-modernism is like
existentialism in that it's not just one thing started by one person.
Post-modernism seems to be more "against" certain things than it is
"for" certain things. For example, it's anti-epistemological, anti-
transcendental, against "knowledge", rejects truth as corresponding to
reality, rejects anything that is unconditionally binding for all time,
rejects dualism of all kinds, rejects the notion of final answers and
rejects the concept of closed explanatory systems.
Where did it start? That's a tough one. Maybe it started with
Wittgenstein's idea of "language-games." I first learned about it
through Foucault then from Lyotard and Derrida. The biggest problem
that I've got with it is the anti-this, anti-that, anti-everything
stance. There's enough negativity in the world already. I'd like
something to believe in, not just something to be against. Hopelessly
old-fashioned, I know. R
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joyce
>I don't know if I'm a post-modernist but I guess that I can
contribute
>to this a bit. As I understand it, post-modernism is like
>existentialism in that it's not just one thing started by one
person.
>Post-modernism seems to be more "against" certain things than
it is
>"for" certain things. For example, it's anti-epistemological,
anti-
>transcendental, against "knowledge", rejects truth as
corresponding to
>reality, rejects anything that is unconditionally binding for
all time,
>rejects dualism of all kinds, rejects the notion of final
answers and
>rejects the concept of closed explanatory systems.
Oh no, I don't think it's a case of postmodern-rebel-without-a-
cause syndrome. To be sure, we critique the metanarratives,
dualism and phallocentrism which are the products of western
modernist discourse. It's not a knee-jerk reaction, but requires
a different mode of thinking and doing outside the dominant
framework.
>Where did it start? That's a tough one. Maybe it started with
>Wittgenstein's idea of "language-games." I first learned about
it
>through Foucault then from Lyotard and Derrida. The biggest
problem
>that I've got with it is the anti-this, anti-that, anti-
everything
>stance.
Hey, if our principle is Negation with a capital "N", we'd be
called anti-modernists! As Lyotard would have it, we want a
break from the modernist discourse, which has been suppressing
the minorities, the marginalised, the "other". You can't get
more positive than that, unless sitting-by-the-campfire-gazing-
into-the-sky-and-group-singing appeals to you ;-)
There's enough negativity in the world already. I'd like
>something to believe in, not just something to be against.
Hopelessly
>old-fashioned, I know. R
>
An interesting thing I've noticed with you modernists ;-) is
this nostalgia for things of the past, "the way we were". Hey,
remember imperialism? Wasn't it so cool to see Great Britiania
ruling a world 200 times its geograhpical size? Sure, at the
expense to cultural genocide, colonialism, racism and the two
world wars (which, imo, imperialism played a crucial factor).
Joyce (sorry, it's Thursday, my hair's blue, and so's my
bathroom)
Chuck Hlavac
is known as "postmodernism" in philosophy....
Also, it's probably not a good idea to find instances of when
the word "postmodern" was first used, unless it was in the same
context (and meaning) as we are talking about as philosophy
today.... although architecture and art (cubism, for instance)
were forerunners...
Coincidentally (very) I just finished a review/search of where
some ideas which we would call "PM" surfaced in philosophy prior
to 1965 or so, as well as in anthroology and psychology...I
think these authors had an influence on the then and now
students..and philosophers...I will provide this in a few days
here...!!
Chuck Hlavac-
Joyce
>Nathaniel Brandon) as well as Plato, etc., are FAR off from what
>is known as "postmodernism" in philosophy....
I wonder how those ancient philosophers will react if
postmodernism is explained to them....
>
>Also, it's probably not a good idea to find instances of when
>the word "postmodern" was first used, unless it was in the same
>context (and meaning) as we are talking about as philosophy
>today.... although architecture and art (cubism, for instance)
>were forerunners...
Agreed. The meaning of postmodernism is constantly changing.
From an idealised, utopian break from modernity to
acknowledgment of a more ambiguous, interconnected relationship
between the two movements.... here's a question: are we still in
modernity, or in a transition from modernity to postmodernity,
or are we already in postmodernity, except that the "artifacts"
of modernity are still with us?
Joyce
Lev Lafayette
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Joyce wrote:
>
> Agreed. The meaning of postmodernism is constantly changing.
> From an idealised, utopian break from modernity to
> acknowledgment of a more ambiguous, interconnected relationship
> between the two movements.... here's a question: are we still in
> modernity, or in a transition from modernity to postmodernity,
> or are we already in postmodernity, except that the "artifacts"
> of modernity are still with us?
IMHO, there are some aspects of contemporary society that equate with a
qualitative change in social structures that would suggest a transition
from modernity to postmodernity; specifically the change in the means of
production and - albeit only in part - a change in the mode of
consciousness.
On the other hand, there has been no changes in other universal social
structures; the dominant institution still remains the corporation, the
means of social differentation is still class based, and society is still
primarily endangered by crises arising from the social system.
Interestingly, the most likely result of this attempt to combine
postmodern technology with modern political apparatus seems to be economic
paralysis. This is quite different to the combination of modern technology
with a traditional mode of consciousness (ie., Nazism)
Regards,
Lev Lafayette.
l...@student.unimelb.edu.au http://www.student.unimelb.edu.au/~lev
James Whitehead
b.edu.au>, Lev Lafayette <l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> writes
>
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Joyce wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed. The meaning of postmodernism is constantly changing.
>> From an idealised, utopian break from modernity to
>> acknowledgment of a more ambiguous, interconnected relationship
>> between the two movements.... here's a question: are we still in
>> modernity, or in a transition from modernity to postmodernity,
>> or are we already in postmodernity, except that the "artifacts"
>> of modernity are still with us?
>
>IMHO, there are some aspects of contemporary society that equate with a
>qualitative change in social structures that would suggest a transition
>from modernity to postmodernity; specifically the change in the means of
>production and - albeit only in part - a change in the mode of
>consciousness.
>
>On the other hand, there has been no changes in other universal social
>structures; the dominant institution still remains the corporation, the
>means of social differentation is still class based, and society is still
>primarily endangered by crises arising from the social system.
the end of the cold war... is there any binary opposition anymore - the
break up of the family, and its patterns of mother at home father at
work... the end of politics (no longer opposing ideologies but merely
different packaging new-labour = old tory) The class system still
remains in the UK - however a new under-class unemployed/un-employable
has appeared - working class gives an income which is often greater than
middle class - allot of the new money around the city has also
distorted the fixed system. Once their kids get through public school
then again this system maybe more virtual than anything other..
>
>Interestingly, the most likely result of this attempt to combine
>postmodern technology with modern political apparatus seems to be economic
>paralysis.
paralysis is what is required as we seem to arrived at utopia. That is
everyone seems fairly content - even if its by use of crack. Students
drift around the campuses on mobiles.... we wait for the next virtual
war on CNN ... or African famine to raise the status of fading pop
stars- "oh that magic feeling no-where to go"
>with a traditional mode of consciousness (ie., Nazism)
>
were certainly explosive.
--
James Whitehead
Joyce
>>IMHO, there are some aspects of contemporary society that
equate with a
>>qualitative change in social structures that would suggest a
transition
>>from modernity to postmodernity; specifically the change in
the means of
>>production and - albeit only in part - a change in the mode of
>>consciousness.
>By this do you mean what has been called post-fordism
>>
>>On the other hand, there has been no changes in other
universal social
>>structures; the dominant institution still remains the
corporation, the
>>means of social differentation is still class based, and
society is still
>>primarily endangered by crises arising from the social system.
Like James, I'd argue that the hegemonic ideologies and
political discourses such as Marxism, liberalism or any other
fantasmagoric, totalising thoughts have been overturned. We can
no longer base differences solely on one thing, because our
understandings and beliefs have become much more diverse than,
say, 50 years ago.
James:
>I would have to disagree here- the collapse of nationalism and
Marxism -
>the end of the cold war... is there any binary opposition
anymore - the
>break up of the family, and its patterns of mother at home
father at
>work... the end of politics (no longer opposing ideologies but
merely
>different packaging new-labour = old tory) The class system
still
>remains in the UK - however a new under-class unemployed/un-
employable
>has appeared - working class gives an income which is often
greater than
>middle class - allot of the new money around the city has also
>distorted the fixed system. Once their kids get through public
school
>then again this system maybe more virtual than anything other..
It's interesting that you should mention the blurring - or
collapsing of binarism. From a postcolonial perspective of
Britain's urban population (which has 20% of ethnic minority),
it is evident that the legacy of British imperialism contributed
to the factor. However, this also means that as a "post-nation"
(as oppose to the previously imagined, constructed, and limited
national identity and nationalism), there is no longer a "pure"
ethinicity, but rather, a more inclusive and diverse culture....
or perhaps I'm being overly optimistic?
Peace and long life to all fellow Vulcans and earth creatures,
Joyce
James Whitehead
>collapsing of binarism. From a postcolonial perspective of
>Britain's urban population (which has 20% of ethnic minority),
>it is evident that the legacy of British imperialism contributed
>to the factor. However, this also means that as a "post-nation"
>(as oppose to the previously imagined, constructed, and limited
>national identity and nationalism), there is no longer a "pure"
>ethinicity, but rather, a more inclusive and diverse culture....
>or perhaps I'm being overly optimistic?
Diversity yes - but I'm not optimistic.
What is happening in British society? - firstly Wales Scotland and
Ireland seem to be separating themselves out- in pessimistic mode we
might find a neo- tribalism - The diet of White English Xenophobic Yobs
being German Beer, Vindaloo and Kebabs! (lets hope the mixture proves
fatal)
How dynamic these groups are is also interesting - i suspect a real lack
of any commitment except to subjectivity - but i might be projecting my
own feelings onto something which has positive social elements.
Post-Nation, post-society, England - some of the new-tribes are more
friendly than others, Vulcans beware!
>
>Peace and long life to all fellow Vulcans and earth creatures,
>Joyce
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
news:Z2kxbPA5...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>
> >It's interesting that you should mention the blurring - or
> >collapsing of binarism. From a postcolonial perspective of
> >Britain's urban population (which has 20% of ethnic minority),
> >it is evident that the legacy of British imperialism contributed
> >to the factor. However, this also means that as a "post-nation"
> >(as oppose to the previously imagined, constructed, and limited
> >national identity and nationalism), there is no longer a "pure"
> >ethinicity, but rather, a more inclusive and diverse culture....
> >or perhaps I'm being overly optimistic?
>
> Diversity yes - but I'm not optimistic.
> What is happening in British society? - firstly Wales Scotland and
> Ireland seem to be separating themselves out- in pessimistic mode we
> might find a neo- tribalism - The diet of White English Xenophobic Yobs
> being German Beer, Vindaloo and Kebabs! (lets hope the mixture proves
> fatal)
>
Yes, what was the "pure ethnicity" of Britain?
Ned
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
extreme northern islands - Orkney ... have the oldest claim by virtue of
relating their DNA to the chap found frozen in the Alps. They typically
have red hair? The English are a complete mix, though the royal family
are tiny - Prince Charles is only 2 feet high - due to inbreeding.
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
Ned:
> Yes, what was the "pure ethnicity" of Britain?
James:
> I don't think it was the Celts - I understand that the folk from the
> extreme northern islands - Orkney ... have the oldest claim by virtue
> of relating their DNA to the chap found frozen in the Alps. They
> typically have red hair? The English are a complete mix, though the
> royal family are tiny - Prince Charles is only 2 feet high - due to
> inbreeding.
>
OHHH... so THAT'S why he told Camilla he wanted to be her Tampax!
I never understood how that could work. Thanks for the clarification.
So, nobody's buying the "one of the lost tribes of Israel" claim
for the Brits?
Ned
Joyce
>> Diversity yes - but I'm not optimistic.
>> What is happening in British society? - firstly Wales
Scotland and
>> Ireland seem to be separating themselves out- in pessimistic
mode we
>> might find a neo- tribalism - The diet of White English
Xenophobic Yobs
>> being German Beer, Vindaloo and Kebabs! (lets hope the
mixture proves
>> fatal)
Neo-tribalism - sort of nationalism on a smaller, local scale.
But it's of interest to note that there might be an atavistic
movement going on - in terms of globalisation as a form a 21st
century consumer version of humanism.
>
> Yes, what was the "pure ethnicity" of Britain?
>
> Ned
What it has always meant - the white "superior" race who judges
the rest of the world and cultures with its own standards and
find them to be "lacking" and need to be injected with the
enlightenment discourse, but ofcourse these "sad" primitives
will only ever be a mimicry of the colonising subjects. Only
reinforces the (constructed) "differences" between them.
Ned Ludd
news:097752a5...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com...
>
>> Diversity yes - but I'm not optimistic.
>> What is happening in British society? - firstly Wales
>> Scotland and Ireland seem to be separating themselves
>> out- in pessimistic mode we might find a neo- tribalism -
>> The diet of White English Xenophobic Yobs being German
>> Beer, Vindaloo and Kebabs! (lets hope the mixture proves
>> fatal)
>
> Neo-tribalism - sort of nationalism on a smaller, local scale.
> But it's of interest to note that there might be an atavistic
> movement going on - in terms of globalisation as a form a 21st
> century consumer version of humanism.
>
I'm surprised you don't cast neo-tribalism in the same light
as other of the colonizing, male-dominated, imperialistic plots
and evils of the modern world. After all, it DOES balkanize
the population into fragmented competing groups, and insulates
the centralized power of the oligarchy.
Ned:
>> Yes, what was the "pure ethnicity" of Britain?
Joyce:
> What it has always meant - the white "superior" race who
> judges the rest of the world and cultures with its own
> standards and find them to be "lacking" and need to be
> injected with the enlightenment discourse, but ofcourse
> these "sad" primitives will only ever be a mimicry of the
> colonising subjects. Only reinforces the (constructed)
> "differences" between them.
>
Oh come on, Joyce, read "Gunga Din" - just read it once with
an open mind. I think even during the Raj the Brits knew they
were dealing with a superior civilization.
How can you criticize judging when you are judging all this
colonialism, etc. Will you also judge Congo(Zaire)? (which
has had 40 years of non-white rule.) How about Zimbabwe and
Nigeria?
Ned
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> So, nobody's buying the "one of the lost tribes of Israel" claim
>for the Brits?
You colonials! I'm talking about the English - Probably the Welsh might
consider such (they both have a thing about harps)- but the English do
not trust Jews - since the days when they were usurers - the English
have a fondness more for the Arabs - cheating murderous anti-
intellectual gamblers.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<aleesas_at...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes
>What it has always meant - the white "superior" race who judges
>the rest of the world and cultures with its own standards and
>find them to be "lacking" and need to be injected with the
>enlightenment discourse, but ofcourse these "sad" primitives
>will only ever be a mimicry of the colonising subjects. Only
>reinforces the (constructed) "differences" between them.
>
"The gentleman has had a long innings... The gentleman is to be defined
as one of a society of equals who live on slave labour, or at any rate
upon the labour of men whose inferiority is unquestioned... Culture is
to be devoted to making men gentlemen, in the sense which, largely owing
to Plato is familiar in England... from the Renaissance onwards, the
Greek conception of government by cultured gentlemen gradually prevailed
more and more, reaching its acme in the 18th C."
Bertrand Russell
--
James Whitehead
Joyce
and to stablise the existing social hierarchies.
Joyce
>Joyce <aleesas_at...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:097752a5...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com...
>>
>>> Diversity yes - but I'm not optimistic.
>>> What is happening in British society? - firstly Wales
>>> Scotland and Ireland seem to be separating themselves
>>> out- in pessimistic mode we might find a neo- tribalism -
>>> The diet of White English Xenophobic Yobs being German
>>> Beer, Vindaloo and Kebabs! (lets hope the mixture proves
>>> fatal)
>>
>> Neo-tribalism - sort of nationalism on a smaller, local scale.
>> But it's of interest to note that there might be an atavistic
>> movement going on - in terms of globalisation as a form a 21st
>> century consumer version of humanism.
>>
>
> I'm surprised you don't cast neo-tribalism in the same light
>as other of the colonizing, male-dominated, imperialistic plots
>and evils of the modern world. After all, it DOES balkanize
>the population into fragmented competing groups, and insulates
>the centralized power of the oligarchy.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. But what I was thinking was
of the ambiguities between globalisation and nationalism. To the
effect that they both possess up and down sides.
>
> Oh come on, Joyce, read "Gunga Din" - just read it once with
>an open mind. I think even during the Raj the Brits knew they
>were dealing with a superior civilization.
So why was the need to implement British ideologies and
institutions upon a nation which has its own set of frameworks
and operations already? It is still about conquest by claims of
superiority. The western nations has always judged the "other"
(which, ironically, is also set up by the same western
ideologies) by the same standards it measures itself upon. Just
look at Nato, UN, or even just United States and its
international policing.
>
> How can you criticize judging when you are judging all this
>colonialism, etc. Will you also judge Congo(Zaire)? (which
>has had 40 years of non-white rule.) How about Zimbabwe and
>Nigeria?
>
> Ned
>
Ned, I experience great psychic pain each time I read your
post.... So what should we do? Relegate ourselves into an
imaginary non-judgemental mode?
Ned Ludd
>
>>> Diversity yes - but I'm not optimistic.
>>> What is happening in British society? - firstly Wales
>>> Scotland and Ireland seem to be separating themselves
>>> out- in pessimistic mode we might find a neo- tribalism -
>>> The diet of White English Xenophobic Yobs being German
>>> Beer, Vindaloo and Kebabs! (lets hope the mixture proves
>>> fatal)
>>
>> Neo-tribalism - sort of nationalism on a smaller, local scale.
>> But it's of interest to note that there might be an atavistic
>> movement going on - in terms of globalisation as a form a 21st
>> century consumer version of humanism.
>>
> I'm surprised you don't cast neo-tribalism in the same light
> as other of the colonizing, male-dominated, imperialistic plots
> and evils of the modern world. After all, it DOES balkanize
> the population into fragmented competing groups, and insulates
> the centralized power of the oligarchy.
Joyce:
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. But what I was thinking was
> of the ambiguities between globalisation and nationalism. To the
> effect that they both possess up and down sides.
>
Very much so.
Ned:
> Oh come on, Joyce, read "Gunga Din" - just read it once with
> an open mind. I think even during the Raj the Brits knew they
> were dealing with a superior civilization.
Joyce:
> So why was the need to implement British ideologies and
> institutions upon a nation which has its own set of frameworks
> and operations already?
>
The short answer is money. The medium answer is the emperor
of China wouldn't buy western goods with all the gold and silver
he was amassing from selling tea to Europeans. India was raw,
new, economic space. And when the Brits discovered they could
grow opium there and sell it in China, well... several birds
with one stone.
> It is still about conquest by claims of superiority. The western
> nations has always judged the "other" (which, ironically, is
> also set up by the same western ideologies) by the same standards
> it measures itself upon. Just look at Nato, UN, or even just
> United States and its international policing.
>
Yes, "other" is fundamental. I'm convinced that xenophobia has
a genetic analog - that it is integral to the species. I'm only
aware of one (poorly documented) behavioral trait where humans
deliberately seek "outsiders".
Fear of strangers is hatred of strangers. From that, "claims of
superiority" and implementation of your institutions over theirs
follows quite naturally. (Even if you know they have an equal or
superior civilization to yours.)
Ned:
> How can you criticize judging when you are judging all this
> colonialism, etc. Will you also judge Congo(Zaire)? (which
> has had 40 years of non-white rule.) How about Zimbabwe and
> Nigeria?
Joyce:
> Ned, I experience great psychic pain each time I read your
> post.... So what should we do? Relegate ourselves into an
> imaginary non-judgemental mode?
>
Ah... not picking and choosing, an admirable goal! But how can
you pick it? For the cases in point (Congo, Zimbabwe, Nigeria),
the best you can do it let them do it themselves. Now, how about
Bosnia and Kosovo? Would you classify the actions of Nato/UN/US
in those areas as the same sort of thing that the British did
in India? (Or was the Bosnia/Kosovo intervention a GOOD thing?)
Ned