There was a time – and being born in 1959, I am old enough to remember it – when the idea of Civilization needed no explanation or defense. Everybody knew what it meant. Civilization was tied to another term, now likewise mocked, and that term is Progress.
Progress was the idea that society was moving forward, upward, toward higher goals – better medicine, faster transportation, the brutality of hard labor replaced by stronger, then smarter machines; abundant energy, increased wealth and leisure: all of these things were greatly desired, and society was proud to provide them, proud to show them off in World Fairs and Expos and in the mythology of the movies.
Now “progress” and “civilization” are ironic terms, in sneer quotes, muttered with that pathetic, bored tone of cynical nihilism started by the narcissistic brats that I have been ten years behind for my entire life. Today, I try to exercise and watch my weight only so that I may live long enough to see the last of these radical hippies die in their sleep.
This is why Bill Whittle is one of my favourite reads. Read on. It’s all you’re getting today, because it’s enough.
JJM- since the Quebecois ‘pur laine’ are not reproducing in their previous numbers, then, immigration is an important issue in Quebec. Unfortunately, most of it is going to only one city, Montreal, for Quebec, as a province, is not that welcoming to non-Quebecois and is particularly not keen on ‘visible minorities’ who tend to settle only in Montreal.
All at stats can: ‘immigrant population by place of birth’ and ‘visible minority population, by census metropolitan areas’ and ‘proportion of foreign-born population, by census metropolitan area’.
Sorry, Vitruvius, lacking prescience, Chap. 1 was all I had to read and ponder.
“ET”:
Croyez-moi, mon ami, immigration isn’t helping Québec in the least:
1. They’re not getting the French speakers they really want. Unfortunately for all their clever planning, European French speakers just aren’t emigrating in any great numbers anymore. Instead, they get Haitians.
2. And curse those immigrants! When they do get to Québec, many of them aren’t interested in staying put. The ingrates! Quite a number often see better opportunities in a more westerly direction – or even “due south.” Go figure.
“ET”:
Croyez-moi, mon ami, immigration isn’t helping Québec in the least:
1. They’re not getting the French speakers they really want. Unfortunately for all their clever planning, European French speakers just aren’t emigrating in any great numbers anymore. Instead, they get Haitians.
2. And curse those immigrants! When they do get to Québec, many of them aren’t interested in staying put. The ingrates! Quite a number often see better opportunities in a more westerly direction – or even “due south.” Go figure.
ET:
“However, I don’t get the impression from the left that they have any notion of causes of social behaviour; they never explore the environment as cause, history as cause. They seem to focus only on an agenda of rejecting social/cultural change in Other Peoples. A romantic Rousseau-based viewpoint.”
This is one crucial difference between liberalism and socialism (or at least marxism). Marxism places enormous stress on history and on analysis of the causes and conditions of social institutions and behaviour. Here’s a quote: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past” (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Karl Marx 1852).
I’m just trying to convince you that socialism and liberalism are not the same.
Here’s an ‘ism’: People-are-not-ants-ism, and they are not, over the long term, bound to or controlled by any particular doctrine or dogma.
Rabbit: “Some of the people whose works form the foundation of postmodernism were found to be Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.”
You’re not saying that someone like Churchill Ward, who loves to call contemporary capitalists “little Eichmans” (or more accurately the unfortunate workers caught in the World Trade Center during 9/11) is in fact a big Eichman? Sounds like a case of the end justifying the means.
Wonder what makes the king of the mountain a dirty rascal? Is it because we’re not the king?
Nemo2:
“Here’s an ‘ism’: People-are-not-ants-ism, and they are not, over the long term, bound to or controlled by any particular doctrine or dogma.”
You have a doctrine, this website has a doctrine, I have a doctrine – almost everybody does. But I don’t think anyone here has suggested that people are ants!
Socialism and liberalism are not only not the same, they are nearly opposites. On the other hand, liberalism is not synonymous with left-of-center, or with the Liberal Party either.
Here’s today’s trivia question: Who said, “I’d rather be considered a socialist than a democratic socialist?”
vitruvius:
“Socialism and liberalism are not only not the same, they are nearly opposites. On the other hand, liberalism is not synonymous with left-of-center, or with the Liberal Party either.”
I’m not sure why you say “on the other hand” but, apart from that – absolutely! And what a pleasure it is to meet someone who understands this 🙂
agitfact,
If I were to read:
… worry, be scared; government intervention is good for all; abhor conservatives; complain about the small stuff, and be prepared to be a coward in war as well as at work. Otherwise civilization as we know it fails.
would I have found a propaganda pony? Should I feel like the proverbial kid attacking a room full of manure with a shovel?
Should I wonder who pays for such stuff?
Does anyone actually read this shit?
Leftist – I agree completely – that socialism and liberalism are not the same. It never occurred to me that they were. By ‘liberalism’, I’m sure you mean genuine liberalism, not the Liberal Party of Canada, which is socialist.
Actually, I don’t think that Marxism places any stress on history. It stresses mythic or fictional history, what Popper calls ‘historicism’, which has nothing to do with actual facts of ‘what happened this month by x-people to Y-people’.
So, the Marxist analysis posits an essentialist linear force that almost genetically moves societies through stages, much like the biological stages of a life-span. That’s not history; that’s biological development. Your quote is a good example of historicism.
I say on the other hand, Leftist, because in my opinion the modern political left have aligned themselves with socialism, and the modern political right have aligned themselves with liberalism. I tend to find, now-a-days, that the concept of left-liberal has essentially become a self-contradictory categorization. From where I’m observing, the left, the socialists, and the Liberals have pretty much given up on liberty (it’s their precautionary principle at work, don’cha know).
Martin:
Churchill Ward is certainly one of the biggest douches in the universe (the biggest is, of course, the “psychic” John Edwards).
The University of Colorado now wants to turf him from his tenured position for failure to maintain academic standards. Unfortunately it’s difficult to separate that issue from the university’s objections to his, um, controversial views, which he has a right to even as a tenured professor.
It’s seems ironic that postmodernism, whose adherents are almost all socialist or marxist, has such strong roots in fascism. Of course, it can be awfully difficult to tell these things apart.
Hey folks, for the record, the guy you’re talkin’ about is Ward Churchill, the fake Indian and academic fraud. There’s no need to drag some poor guy who happens to be named Churchill Ward into this.
‘Gotta agree with lookout on this one–and am grateful to Kate for posting Bill Whittle’s article on civilization and why it is that so many entitled eedjits in the West are tearing it down.
Judeo-Christianity is central to the civilization we enjoy in the West: As lookout points out, music, art, dance and drama (Christian churches were the first “theatres” in Europe), educational, medical, and judicial systems of Western democracies have for centuries been given a giant ‘boost’–if not the kick start–by individuals holding Judeo-Christian beliefs. Very simply put: “Love the Lord your God…and love thy neighbour as thyself.”
I notice a definite chill on this blog whenever this point is made, something I find most unfortunate as it—phobia of religious faith–is indicative of precisely one of the pernicious ailments sucking the life out of our beleaguered civilization.
Faith-filled individuals have been bold risk-takers in establishing the cornerstones of Western democracy–most public hospitals and educational institutions have been founded and funded by Christian and Jewish believers–and to turn a blind eye to this fact is to ignore some powerful medicine with which to revive our afflicted Western civilization.
I’m not for one minute arguing that everyone in the West needs to be a Judeo-Christian, or that each person needs to believe in the tenets of this faith, but I would at least appreciate an acknowledgement of its importance and a recognition of the centrality of Christians and Jews to the philanthropic aspects of every Western democracy, which I suggest are at the root of what is best about our civilization, which are, if you will, the sinews holding together this Web of Trust that Bill Whittle talks about.
To have a discussion about the riches of our civilization without even a nod to millions upon millions of “layers” of Judeo-Christian faith over the millennia is like having a discussion about children without any recognition that their only way of being “here” is because they have mothers.
Our cherished civilization, which is fast going down the toilet–with a nod to the George Clooneys and Michael Moores of the world, not to mention Grand Theft Auto–didn’t just happen. One of the main “ingredients” has been the faith of millions and millions of men and women, who have had the courage, foresight, hard-work ethic, love for others and a willingness to sacrifice their lives for others and for the accomplishment of goals beyond their limited and individualistic self-interest. These characteristics seem to be at a premium at the present.
Without the recognition and the appreciation of religious faith and its power to move men, women, and children to be altruistic—to love their “neighbours,” who most often are people they have never met—our civilization is, sadly, likely to be pushed faster to its demise.
Nice posts, ET. I agree with you on nature vs nuture with respect to IQ. Let me add also that sexual preferences, handedness, aptitudes, and talents and some personality traits are hard-wired. That’s where psychiatry stands today and I stand with them. But, hard-wired advantages get cancelled or muted if you are raised by idiots or in a culture that is primative – why are Muslims in the ME laggards in everything from science to literature? You can’t make a nuclear physicist out of an IQ of 90, but, you sure can kill an IQ of 130 from being one by poor nurturing and ignorance. You can also enhance an IQ to reach its full potential with good nurturing.
Bill Whittle is dead on. We have allowed the left to denigrade our proud and noble culture by participating in their multi-culti fraud that all cultures are equal. Sickening, isn’t it.
ET: “Leftist – I agree completely – that socialism and liberalism are not the same. It never occurred to me that they were. By ‘liberalism’, I’m sure you mean genuine liberalism, not the Liberal Party of Canada, which is socialist.”
Yeah, I meant small ‘l’ liberalism and no, I wouldn’t identify that with the Liberal party. But I agree with Alasdair MacIntyre who said that in America there are conservative liberals and liberal liberals. (The situation is slightly more complex in Canada.) I’m not sure why you call the Liberal party socialist. Is it because they have (especially in the past) favoured a certain amount of state intervention? I’d call that slightly modified capitalism but not, by any stretch of the imagination, socialism.
“So, the Marxist analysis posits an essentialist linear force that almost genetically moves societies through stages, much like the biological stages of a life-span. That’s not history; that’s biological development. Your quote is a good example of historicism.”
Popper thought that marxism was unfalsifiable. I don’t think that’s true but it’s hard to discuss falisfiability in the comments section of a blog! Anyway, it’s true that some Marxists have talked about history in the way you describe. But the quote I cited suggests a more (if you’ll pardon the term) dialectical understanding.
Anyway, thanks for the civil and thoughtful response.
Vitruviuw wrote:
“I say on the other hand, Leftist, because in my opinion the modern political left have aligned themselves with socialism, and the modern political right have aligned themselves with liberalism. I tend to find, now-a-days, that the concept of left-liberal has essentially become a self-contradictory categorization. ”
I agree that it’s a self-contradiction. That was part of my point. But I would also say that most people who oppose the political right are in fact liberals (though of a different sort than those on the political right). My argument is that it is highly inaccurate to call these people socialists. They are in fundamental disagreement with socialists.
Vitruvius:
I meant to type “Churchill, Ward” but my comma key keeps sticking. Honest to god.
Ural,
you are helping make my point. Of course I would not wonder if I read your version, since it is bare-bones and to the point (as well as being entirely predictable and expectable under the circumstances.) But if you were to bury it in soft soap and advertise it as a favourite read and matter for serious consideration, I would scratch my head.
Vitruvius, excuse me for mistyping your nom-de-keyboard!
…multiculturalism at work in canada…
http://www.sammcgill.com/hate.html
leftist – I think that falsifiability can be discussed on a blog! And I’d agree with Popper that Marxism is not falsifiable; it’s a utopian ideology and therefore operates outside of ‘real life’.
I don’t think that your quote expresses a dialectics; instead, it seems to me to posit a linear determinism, where the present is determined by the past.
new kid – I wonder that you don’t reference the Greek and Roman contribution to our society and instead stree the religious contribution of Christianity and Judaism. I think that the intellectual contribution of the Greeks, in particular, was enormously influential. The Islamic world doesn’t have any equivalent ‘early democracies’ as were found in the Greek and Roman world.
And, the Islamic world has essentially, no science – that’s an enormous problem for it means that they live in a world that is primarily fictional rather than factual.
I meant to type “Churchill, Ward” but my comma key keeps sticking. Honest to god.
Thanks for the chuckle, Rabbit, Brer.
Dhimmi, Me No
Speaking of civilization, terrorists and insurgents come from one of sorts. A civilization I mean.
It they were to be caught and sent back alive, but with , ah lets say a bullet in one of their knees, they could fully enjoy their civilization for 20 30 years. Some fun that’d be eh?
Lots of time to think how thing could be different for them if their ” civilization” had evolved, even just a little.
Mean?…. I know,I know.
Vitruvius’s short history of the world: Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Magna Carta, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the founding documents of the United States of America. So I would have to say that the contribution of the judeo-christian models of various social and philosohical mechanisms have been a notably significant part of the progress of civilization since, let’s see, well, the Magna Carta was June 15, 1215. That’ll do for me.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo my.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo my my my my my.
definite keeper there. web of trust. civilization.
ooooooooooooooooo jeez. Im gonna hafta go over this one a couple dozen times to get it down pat.
Robert J:
I hear it’s available as a “Talking Book”.
regarding progress:
in economics, the one aspect Ive seen lacking in all formal presentations in an adequate contrast in the time frame of transactions.
some deals may be counterproductive or not cost beneficial in the short term.
but are we planning on obliterating ourselves in the short term?
blue box promotion is an example I cite to defend it. in the short term blue box recycling costs more than just heaving it all in the same truck and then off to the same landfill.
but in the long term, recycling means existing landfills get their life expectancy extended by 50 – 100 %. and the FIRST TIME you dont have to scrounge around and pay millions for a new one is the moment the blue box recycling program finally pays for itself.
short term, long term, you need to consider the TIME FRAME of a policy, practice, transaction, process, etc. THAT is the REAL measure of progress.
vitruvius – I very much like your short history..of the ‘civilized’ world.
You are right; I left out the Egyptians and they should indeed be there.
Do you realize – and I agree with your list – but, your positing that the Judeo-Christian influence began with the Magna Carta of 1215 means that you are suggesting that the influence of these religious models was based on their modernized, reformed versions – rather than their early versions. In the case of Christianity, the early ‘selection’ of the Athanasian rather than Arian interpretation meant an intellectual inability to question, explore, to adapt to the world. This was overturned by the 13th c. reformation phase.
I fully agree with your inclusion of the founding documents of the USA.
It’s a good history. Notice how it step by step, enables questions, analysis, and requires responsibility and accountability.
I didn’t mention the Greek and Roman civilizations, ET, because, though they contributed a great deal to our present civilization, both of these civilizations fell; we have a lot of broken statuary and potsherds to attest to their fall.
I am neither a theologian nor a classicist, but assert, nonetheless, that for the past 2000 centuries, the foundational beliefs of Judeo-Christianity have been front and centre in the building of Western democracies, with much that is best from both the Greek and Roman civilizations having influenced the Judeo-Christian cultures upon which our modern democracies are built.
I don’t want my main point, however, to be obscured by the discussion of the merits of the Greek and Roman civilizations, of which there were many.
Simply put, again, without due deference to Judeo-Christianity (and its myriad contributions to Western democracies) in a discussion about maintaining Western civilization, we cut off access to one of the main arteries which pumps, and has pumped, life blood into our civilization.
The very fact that this subject is pretty much taboo in the public square leads me to think that Western civilization is closer to the eve of destruction than I like to think.
agitfact > “Now this is the first I have heard of 100 million getting shot in the back of the neck by Communist secret police…… But now they get the single-bullet treatment in prison basements. Does Whittle have any idea what he is talking about? Does it even matter?”
I think it’s plain he was writing figuratively. Anyway if you’d like to bone up on where the numbers come from, I’d suggest you read R.J. Rummel’s “Death By Government”. His conservative estimate is somewhere around 160 million. And the numbers attributed directly to war represent a very small fraction of this.
“Does it matter?” Nah! Wasn’t it that great hero of the left, Stalin, who said someting like ‘one death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic’?
JR,
the “Does it even matter?” refers to whether Whittle knows what he is talking about, not whether a single person or 160 million “got it in the neck” (to borrow a phrase.) And when you come right down to it, the former does not matter because there seems to be enough credulity to go around.
civilizations founding documents:
let me expand of vitruis inclusion of the declaration of independence (founding documents bla bla):
this was a first.
this was a real pioneering first for the human race.
for the FIRST time a naiscant nation’s occupants declared that by virtue of being born human, you had within you, intrinsic and INALIENABLE rights.
not dependent on da gubbamint deciding you had rights, as here in canuckistan, but suffice that you are BORN with them.
they shucked monarchy. no taxation without representation.
but the business of SPELLING OUT the FACT that the rights were ALREADY THERE was a first. the declaration didnt create the rights; they were already there. the declaration merely pointed this out.
etc etc
the rest as they say, is history.
and it is why I have such admiration of the american model and feel great sadness when it is corrupted and misappropriated by the likes of george dubya.
Yes, ET, I am suggesting that the influence of these religious models was based on their modernized, reformed versions, rather than their early versions. Speaking as a modernist, I abhor both pre-modern barbarism, and post-modern nihlism.
And Kid, although it is the case that in the nominal sense the Greek and Roman civilizations did fall, it is also the case that their greatest contributions to the human experience live on today in western civilization. So, at least in that sense, I’d still consider them successful.
Now, based on my 10,000-odd year history, I would have to say that forecasts to the effect that humanity is on the eve of the imminent demise of the progress of civilization are likely to be disappointed.
agitfact,
But if you were to bury it in soft soap and advertise it as a favourite read and matter for serious consideration, I would scratch my head.
I agree with you. OK, just a couple more questions. If instead of a individual (Kate) recommending to read another individuals essay … what about … say a publicly funded institution … like CBC … saying those things. Is it news or propaganda? What about a collective … like MSM, PPG … does everything change? … news now?
I’m a simple country boy … don’t understand all the big words … help.
Again, I agree with vitruvius. The Greek and Roman civilizations didn’t fall/disappear; they transformed into the ‘western civilization’ as it too underwent transformations.
I also agree with vitruvius’ focus on the importance of the reformed rather than pre-reformation Christianity.
i also don’t assume that our western civilization will disappear. It works too well; it’s the only mode that enables humans to live – as humans – see Robert J’s notes on the American Constitution.
I’ll disagree with robert j’s opinion of Bush. I’m very supportive of Bush and his actions.
Vitruvius, I did acknowledge the contributions that both the Greek and Roman civilizations have made to Western civilization, though their societies/cultures took a mighty tumble which, so far, Judeo-Christianity hasn’t–but sure could if we give up on the principles and foundational truths it has bequeathed to us and upon which Western democracies have proceeded in the past 2000 years.
I sincerely hope that your optimism is justified–and realize that history should be looked at in the long view. Your willingness to “allow” religion into this dicussion is heartening, however, and speaks of “progress”!
I don’t have a link for this, so it could be apocryphal, but I recall that when one of the lads who was caught up in the sweep that netted the inmates at Guantanamo was found to be a non-combatant and was released (back in the early days of this latest struggle) he was asked by some reporter what he thought the US should do to compensate him, and he said he wanted a green card.
These are only my suspicions, I have no crystal ball, but I suspect that the vast majority of humans want the benefits of the history of civilization that we in Canada enjoy at this time. I think that the reason that this slow but inexorable march of progress has succeeded is because, in practice, it tends to appeal to humans more than all the alternatives combined, net net.
ET, I would very much like to hitch a ride on your assertion that you “don’t assume [like Vitruvius] that our western civilization will disappear. It works too well; it’s the only mode that enables humans to live – as humans – see Robert J’s notes on the American Constitution.”
But I’m not as optimistic as you. I’d like to know what is the reason for your enthusiasm–or, at the very least, for your optimism? I agree with you that Western civilization works very well, (it has been hard fought for and hard won), but why couldn’t it break down and crumble the way the Greek and Roman civilizations did? What makes you think that Western civilization might not go the way of other civilizations?
What happens when living as humans beings begins to not happen? I’m seeing alarming evidence all around me that this is the case, and it’s happening at an alarming rate; our humanity is badly slipping…
What is it that will keep Western civilization from going the way of all of the other civilizations?
ET says “It works too well”
There seems to be no shortage of people who want our civilization to end up as rubble.
The scarier ones are the ones who were born and raised here. They want their leftist utopia and they don’t seem too concerned about trashing every good thing about western civilization.
Bill Whittle makes for a good read as are some of the comments here. I’ll not get into the debate now as some people are starting to get into an academic tizzy. Being a quasi-hippy type in the 60’s and early 70’s, I enjoyed a lot of the day but joining the reserves during that time also meant that I had a sense of duty and responsibility that I still carry today. I never developed that attitude of entitlement and for that I am greatful. Just my two cents worth
You guys are going to be Bitch slapped when Kate reads this.
Anon (ural)
Sorry Kate,
Just F’ing around. No disrespect indented.
new kid, I altogether concur.
AND I too notice a real chill factor here re the foundational importance of the Judeo-Christian dispensation re Western Civilization AND the evidence of its serious decline, on display each day in the behaviour of children and adults alike at just about any public school one cares to consider in this country and in most western democracies.
I’m disappointed by this apparent blind spot at sda. (New kid’s is the only one in 87 posts which has addressed the points I’ve made about religion and education, which, I believe, are central to Bill Whittle’s thesis.) Though I agree with so much of what is posited here, there appears to be tone deafness re the seminal influences of both religion and public education: It’s as if the story of who we are as a society starts more than half way through and the unpleasant ending’s simply ignored. Or as if one refuses to admit that one’s black hair, beautiful eyes, high IQ, and seriously bad temper have nothing at all to do with an unpopular grandparent. (That kind of selective reality is what I expect–and what we regularly get–from the left.)
This disregard of certain facts one would prefer to ignore seems to me to be one of the symptoms of the kind of society many of us here fear we are becoming.
ET’s assertion that “i [sic] also don’t assume that our western civilization will disappear. It works too well” is, I think, disingenuous: I’m sure Rome thought its civilization worked too well to collapse too. (And most of us here know full well that freedom has a price–and often a very steep one: “Working well” is no guarantee of either success or perpetuity.)
In 2006, the ideals of relativism, self-gratification– immediately–and radical equality have replaced those of truth, loving one’s neighbour as oneself, and honouring any idea of tradition and age-old wisdom. Our education system is both an example and incubator of the latter world view. So I definitely don’t share ET’s optimism about the fate of our civilization.
new kid asks, “What is it that will keep Western civilization from going the way of all of the other civilizations?” That’s an excellent question.
How can anybody say that the LPC is not socialistic ? They have been in power most of the time, and their policies. Socialism; taking wealth from some and giving it to others. What else would you call working almost half the year to pay the “state” it’s taxes. Income Tax, GST, PST, property tax, fees of all kinds,
Whoops! Re the education system, I meant FORMER world view.
(Actually, the answer to new kid’s question is to reclaim the latter world view, though putting genies back in bottles has proven to be notoriously difficult. And once the genie’s out, often the ending’s really bad.)
lookout,
I don’t think it’s particularly fair to tell others what they need to be talking about. I really don’t see a big shout down denying that Judeo-Christian principles shaped the western world — that’s really kind of a “no duh” from my perspective.
I do find it interesting that the International Left likes to pretend that American politics have been essentially taken hostage by “Fundamentalist Christians”. Odd to think that anyone in their right mind could point to Americans, and not Islamofascist terrorists, as being the “religious nutters” on the world scene.
Here’s a funny link I found at Sandmonkey that’s somewhat relevant to the topic: http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2002/jihad_tv-p1.php