Niallism

176 thoughts on “Niallism”

1. Actually, Fergusan is married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali), originally from Somalia; so his children (should they have any) will not be eligable to be American/Western by his terms.

2. Oy, thanks for that tip David

3. Eric, are you saying that the societal advance from generic feudalism did not begin in the West (Europe and then the US/Australia) and continue thus until post WWII? If so, I’d have to disagree. I also think it is historically correct to say that the Western model did not significantly displace the feudal state anywhere until after WWII.
   It is also accurate, I am fairly sure, that Asian American students outwork and outperform any other demographic in the US. Is this a diss to Asian American students or the vast majority who are not Asian Americans? Put differently, if 1-2% of the student population (guessing at the actual number here) works in high gear and everyone else is lagging, wouldn’t that be indicative of an overall unsatisfactory state of affairs, a decline, for lack of a better word?

4. It is also accurate, I am fairly sure, that Asian American students outwork and outperform any other demographic in the US. Is this a diss to Asian American students or the vast majority who are not Asian Americans?
   If your point is that Americans need to work harder because non-Americans, like those of Asian descent, are working hard, then, yeah, that’s a BIG problem. And a BIG diss.

5. Eric, I wasn’t unclear: I use Asian American, OTOH, and contrast to the remainder of all other Americans. Asian Americans are a subset of Americans, ethnically speaking, as are Hispanic, African, Native American, Caucasion etc all subsets of the whole. E Pluribus Unim, and all that.
   If only one identifiable subset of Americans are putting in the extra effort, wouldn’t that indicate a decline?

6. ‘And you don’t have to spend too long at any major U.S. university to know which students really drive themselves: the Asians and Asian-Americans.’
   ‘So, according to Ferguson, my wife, son and daughter aren’t really Americans because my wife is of Korean descent.’
   I can see the factual truth in the first statement and cannot reach the same conclusion in the second. If we are both ‘reading minds’, I read it differently.
   Based on the scant excerpts provided, it seems that Ferguson is describing a decline in a certain cultural ethic as well as pointing out a new driver (with different traditional influences) of knowledge-based progress in the US. Do you think none of this is actually happening?

7. Eric, I wasn’t unclear: I use Asian American, OTOH, and contrast to the remainder of all other Americans.
   But Ferguson is using it differently than you. He’s calling Americans Westerners, and bemoaning the decline of the West and wants Americans to revive.
   Citing Asian Americans’ success as evidence of “America’s” decline is…ridiculous.

8. I can see the factual truth in the first statement and cannot reach the same conclusion in the second. If we are both ‘reading minds’, I read it differently.
   You could if you were relegated to reading minds. However, I would prefer to read the surrounding text, context and overall argument.
   That clarifies it.

9. “hones in” is a solecism
   You want “homes in”, as in a homing pigeon’s flight pattern.
   Yes, I’m an annoying pedant.

10. Citing Asian Americans’ success as evidence of “America’s” decline is…ridiculous.
    Maybe, maybe not. If only Asian American students are going the extra mile, then it follows that the remainder are not, which, to me, is indicative of a decline.
    Put differently, he identifies two groups, Asians and Asian Americans and posits that these two groups outwork and outperform the remaining aggregate student body, regardless of origin or ethnicity. If only these two groups out perform and the larger of the two will likely return to their country of origin (or so I assume), leaving only the smaller group behind, that does not look like a good situation.
    But my real question is whether you dispute the notion that “the societal advance from generic feudalism [began] in the West (Europe and then the US/Australia) and continue[d] thus until post WWII?”
    We can disagree about whether Ferguson is a racist (he may be, but that sentence alone doesn’t prove it, at least not to me), but do we disagree with the premise he states at the beginning of the quote from his book?

11. Maybe, maybe not. If only Asian American students are going the extra mile, then it follows that the remainder are not, which, to me, is indicative of a decline.
    But it’s not a decline for “America” if you consider Asian Americans to be Americans too.
    PS: His data is also off here in terms of being the “only” ethnic cohort performing well.
    he may be, but that sentence alone doesn’t prove it, at least not to me
    Nor me. I’ve read his work, and critical pieces on his work. The totality speaks more.
    But my real question is whether you dispute the notion that “the societal advance from generic feudalism [began] in the West (Europe and then the US/Australia) and continue[d] thus until post WWII?”
    I think the history on this does not follow such a straight line, and is used by Ferguson to reach many flawed conclusions.

12. Joel: Fixed. Thanks. Appreciate the correction always.

13. We can disagree about whether Ferguson is a racist…he may be, but that sentence alone doesn’t prove it, at least not to me
    For the record, I didn’t actually say he was a racist, and that’s not what I mean here.
    But his work definitely waxes white supremacist and plays on a familiar racial anxiety.

14. the societal advance from generic feudalism [began] in the West (Europe and then the US/Australia) and continue[d] thus until post WWII
    This seems very weird to me.
    Is the assumption that the entire world, including Europe, operated under some form of ‘feudalism’ until the 15th C?
    I put quotes around feudalism here because it’s not very well defined in this discussion so far.
    And that Europe led the way from ‘generic feudalism’ to our modern economy and nation/state organization?
    I just want to make sure I understand what the claim is.

15. But it’s not a decline for “America” if you consider Asian Americans to be Americans too.
    Of course it is, IF everyone else is dogging it, so to speak. My law firm, and yours, would be in decline if only 5% of the attorneys were doing the heavy lifting.
    But his work definitely waxes white supremacist and plays on a familiar racial anxiety.
    How does one wax “white supremacist” without not unavoidably being simultaneously racist.
    My take on history, FWIW, is that the Western Canon is, on balance, far superior to any contemporary society, then or now. It has spread beyond the traditional “West” because of its desirability such that the original West may be surpassed by younger, more energetic societies. That would be a relative decline. For my part, I wish the original West would keep up because that’s where I, my kids and, hopefully, their kids will grow up. I don’t see a skin color issue here, just a realization that other folks have seen the Western model, they like it, they are adopting it and becoming far more competitive for having done so.

16. Is the assumption that the entire world, including Europe, operated under some form of ‘feudalism’ until the 15th C?
    Yes, that’s why I modified ‘feudalism’ with ‘generic’, except we are really talking about the 16th century, when things really began to pop in Europe, but remained pretty much unchanged elsewhere in terms of societal structure. Whether you call the national leader a king, an emperor, a chief or what have you, and regardless of the form of vassalage supporting that structure, that was virtually the sole form of what passed for gov’t back in the day. It remained fairly constant until the mid 19th through the early 20th centuries but didn’t really begin to unravel until after WWII. Dictatorships dominated the early post WWII years with democracy not making major in roads until the 80’s and 90’s, even in parts of the traditional West.

17. But his work definitely waxes white supremacist and plays on a familiar racial anxiety.
    I haven’t read his work, but I don’t find the argument you’ve made above persuasive.
    I think by “operating systems” he’s talking about cultures. There were huge cultural differences between Asian and Western societies, and still are, but less so now for Asian societies that have adopted Western political and economic systems.
    When he talks about Asians and Asian-Americans outpacing other students, I don’t think he’s complaining about Asians or Asian-Americans; rather, he’s talking about Asian culture having a imbued a strong work ethic in students who have been influenced by it, whereas non-Asian-Americans have had no such beneficial influence.

18. And that Europe led the way from ‘generic feudalism’ to our modern economy and nation/state organization?
    I would say that colonialism, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, was the leading precipitating factor. The US was the wild card that accelerated and changed substantially the dynamic in Europe and ultimately the world, impeded temporarily by marxism and national socialism, and impeded more directly by the former than the latter.

19. his work definitely waxes white supremacist

    Err…what? I mean, seriously: WTF, Eric?
    This started out as oh my goodness, look at the sloppy scholarship, and wound up being a hatchet job. White supremacist isn’t anywhere substantiated in anything you’ve quoted of his.
    You’d probably be seriously pissed if he’d written something similar about you, and justifiably so.

20. How does one wax “white supremacist” without not unavoidably being simultaneously racist.
    You do so by being more subtle, and saying things that are not overtly racist but that appeal to a certain group’s ego.
    Also, people can write things that are racist without themselves being racist.
    Of course it is, IF everyone else is dogging it, so to speak. My law firm, and yours, would be in decline if only 5% of the attorneys were doing the heavy lifting.
    1. It’s not just the 5%.
    2. It wasn’t his point that the decline is happening because only 5% are doing the heavy lifting. His point is, no one is doing the heavy lifting – but Asians and Asian Americans are, hence the West is in decline.

21. I agree with Sapient. Ferguson doesn’t seem to be fussing about Asians of any kind. He’s unhappy with non-Asian Americans, in general, not getting off their butts. I tend to agree with him, if that’s his point.

22. the Western Canon is, on balance, far superior to any contemporary society, then or now
    What does this mean? What is this “Western Canon” you are talking about? What is it’s relationship to “Western society”?
    Stuff like this puzzles me because just saying “Western society” covers such a huge range of turf.
    Just figuring out what “the West” is will break your brain. The “West”, when? Are we including the Byzantine civilization? Are Russia and Eastern Europe part of “the West”? If so, as of when?
    These discussions always seem, to me, like making up an attractive (to somebody) hypotheses and then arranging the data to fit.
    Regarding Asians, there is a very large difference between saying that a higher proportion of Asian-Americans are high achievers relative to other identifiable ethnic groups, and saying that the top N percent of high achievers are Asian-Americans.
    The reasons that a particular group does disproportionately well, at a particular time, are both complex and fluid.
    Asians are also disproportionately represented in criminal gangs in many places in the US. As are, frex, Russians, who are otherwise a population that are pretty high achievers.
    What conclusion do we draw from that?

23. Err…what? I mean, seriously: WTF, Eric?
    This started out as oh my goodness, look at the sloppy scholarship, and wound up being a hatchet job. White supremacist isn’t anywhere substantiated in anything you’ve quoted of his.
    You’d probably be seriously pissed if he’d written something similar about you, and justifiably so.
    OK, first of all, I linked to two reviews of his work, please read first. Further, my opinions on the work of Ferguson are NOT, I repeat NOT, limited to the excerpts above.
    I’ve read some of his work, and watched some of his television productions as well.
    I haven’t read his work, but I don’t find the argument you’ve made above persuasive.
    Neither do I. It wasn’t an argument so much as a complaint. I invite you to read the reviews, read more Ferguson, and then discuss it with me.

24. When he talks about Asians and Asian-Americans outpacing other students, I don’t think he’s complaining about Asians or Asian-Americans; rather, he’s talking about Asian culture having a imbued a strong work ethic in students who have been influenced by it, whereas non-Asian-Americans have had no such beneficial influence.
    That work ethic being, of course, a “Western App” downloaded by non-Western people.

25. ‘Is the assumption that the entire world, including Europe, operated under some form of ‘feudalism’ until the 15th C?’
    The most significant element was the Western European introduction of the market economy replacing the former command economy of the feudal system. That got the ball rolling.

26. Eric, I have to say, you may be unduly influenced by the reviewer’s mind reading. I’m pretty sure demographically valid statistics show that Asian American kids outperform every other cohort. Most other cohorts are “in decline”. How the hell that is supposed to indicate white supremacism (my new word; Count, feel free to chop that one up) beats me to pieces.
    Now, if someone were to say, in effect, white kids need to get off their asses because they are getting beaten by Asian kids, as opposed to everyone needs to get off their assess, then there might be a point. But I don’t see that anywhere in the quoted portion.
    And, for the record, I am using “ass” in the biblical sense, not the anatomical.

27. I’m pretty sure demographically valid statistics show that Asian American kids outperform every other cohort. Most other cohorts are “in decline”. How the hell that is supposed to indicate white supremacism (my new word; Count, feel free to chop that one up) beats me to pieces.
    This is not true across the board. Other ethno-religious groups are doing quite well. But regardless, if you’re writing pieces chiding the West, and the US, for decline and your evidence is how well Asian American students are doing, then…you have a certain conception of the West and the US that doesn’t seem to include Asian Americans.
    Now, if someone were to say, in effect, white kids need to get off their asses because they are getting beaten by Asian kids, as opposed to everyone needs to get off their assess, then there might be a point. But I don’t see that anywhere in the quoted portion.
    But what he’s saying is this: the West is in decline and the US needs to wake up. Evidence: Asians and Asian Americans are working very hard in school. What that does is take Asian Americans out of the West and America.

28. McTex, it would be like this:
    The great Western tradition of excellence in Athletics is in decline.
    America, the standard bearer, is in decline in this way and needs to return to its roots and earlier dominance.
    As evidence of the above, and in support of my call to action for Americans, African Americans are over-represented in professional athletic leagues.
    Do you see anything there that might suggest an ethnic component to being “American”?

29. What is this “Western Canon” you are talking about?
    It encompasses a lot, but fundamentally, it is the blend of individual rights and liberties, combined with property rights, enforced by the rule of law that also bound and limited the power of the state. It began in England, was jump started in the US and then migrated east to the continent (speaking very generally now) and also permeated good portions of the British Empire, producing significant cultural shifts in indigenous societies that were retained post-empire, see e.g. India (but Pakistan, not so much).
    The most significant element was the Western European introduction of the market economy replacing the former command economy of the feudal system.
    The concept of a “market economy” came very late in the game, and it evolved over time, and by time, I mean several centuries.

30. Now, on the one hand, one could argue, hey that was a compliment to African Americans and their fine athletic prowess!
    On the other, one could argue that defining Africans (or Asians) out of the American experience, one is pushing a white-centric version of America.
    The latter would have a point, mind you.
    Now, I did not intend that to be ipso facto proof of Ferguson’s more noxious tendencies. For that, you’ll have to read more of his work.
    (if you read his apologias on empire and the white man’s burden, you’ll see these views reappear in many contexts)

31. What that does is take Asian Americans out of the West and America.
    Eric, that is simply an inference you draw. It is equally, if not more likely, that his intent is comparative, not exclusionary.
    Do you see anything there that might suggest an ethnic component to being “American”?
    Not particularly since (1) the premise (the decline of American athletic supremacy) is a construct and (2) athletics, by its very nature, is a meritocracy–one might say one in which athletic prowess is all too often allowed to excuse other, less salutary behavior, e.g. the Steelers’ and Eagle’s starting QB’s.
    That said, there was a relatively brief time when some quarters were disturbed that African Americans were integrating sports to the detriment of whites. Most of them are dead now, fixing that problem.

32. Eric, that is simply an inference you draw. It is equally, if not more likely, that his intent is comparative, not exclusionary.
    No, I believe that is a conclusion based on what he has written. Read the whole piece.
    Not particularly since (1) the premise (the decline of American athletic supremacy) is a construct and (2) athletics, by its very nature, is a meritocracy–one might say one in which athletic prowess is all too often allowed to excuse other, less salutary behavior, e.g. the Steelers’ and Eagle’s starting QB’s.
    Not sure how either of those responds to my hypothetical in any substantive way.

33. Whether you call the national leader a king, an emperor, a chief or what have you, and regardless of the form of vassalage supporting that structure, that was virtually the sole form of what passed for gov’t back in the day.
    The most significant element was the Western European introduction of the market economy replacing the former command economy of the feudal system.
    To me, with respect, this all seems extraordinarily oversimplified.
    A variety of the institutions we think of as “western” — some kind of republican political organization, established and recognized individual rights, market economies — have been in the mix for many many centuries, at various times and places.
    The idea that it was all kings, dictators, and other forms of absolute sovereigns, right up until ‘the west’ invented capitalism and constitutional governance ignores a hell of a lot.
    I’m curious what Ferguson or anyone else thinks the western genius thing is – the unique, unprecedented innovation, created purely by the western mind.
    Natural and/or civic human rights?
    Private property?
    Broad participation in government?
    Limits on the authority or reach of government?
    Market and/or trade-based economy?
    Scientific innovation?
    I don’t think there is anything uniquely ‘western’ about any of this.
    In the 10,000 years, more or less, that human beings have been living in organized political groups, as opposed to purely extended family networks, ‘the West’ as we think of it today is *perhaps* 1500 years old, and for a considerable amount of that 1500 years has demonstrated few of the traits folks are claiming as its invention and legacy.

34. Let me break his argument down in pieces:
    1. The US is in decline.
    2. An indication of that decline is that Americans are losing their traditional work ethic.
    3. As evidence of #1 and #2, I point to the fact that Asian Americans are excelling/overrepresented at American Universities.
    Question: Why wouldn’t #3 be evidence that Americans…are excellingat American Universities?
    You honestly don’t see

35. It is equally, if not more likely, that his intent is comparative, not exclusionary.
    But what’s the comparison? Comparing:
    Asian Americans to…regular Americans?
    Asian Americans to…Americans?
    In which of those comaparisons are Asian Americans not treated as somehow less American or at least outside the American experience?

36. Not sure how either of those responds to my hypothetical in any substantive way.
    Then I’ll restate: no one is saying that the “great Western tradition of excellence in Athletics is in decline.” Further, no one is saying that it is in decline because African Americans are over represented. And if they did, the complaint would fall flat because athletic success is achieved solely through effort and ability.
    What is being said, as I take the guy, is that Asian Americans are outworking their contemporaries and this is not a good thing, not because of the Asian element, but because of what it says about everyone else.
    Now, to try to take your example of athletics, if someone were to say that it’s not a good thing that only [pick your demographic] shows any real interest in athletics and physical fitness and this is a crying pitiful shame for rest of the country, that would not be a complaint that the demographic group in question was pushing others aside, it would be a complaint about all of the other the lard asses (again, biblical ass, not anatomical) who are couching it.

37. 1. some kind of republican political organization, established and recognized individual rights, market economies — have been in the mix for many many centuries, at various times and places.
    Russell, do you have any examples?
    2. The idea that it was all kings, dictators, and other forms of absolute sovereigns, right up until ‘the west’ invented capitalism and constitutional governance ignores a hell of a lot.
    Again, I would be interested in examples.
    In both instances, I would be interested in examples of countries/societies/cultures outside of the Anglo American West that are responsible for a culture of blended:
    Natural and/or civic human rights?
    Private property?
    Broad participation in government?
    Limits on the authority or reach of government?
    Market and/or trade-based economy?
    Scientific innovation?
    I am aware of none.
    ‘the West’ as we think of it today is *perhaps* 1500 years old, and for a considerable amount of that 1500 years has demonstrated few of the traits folks are claiming as its invention and legacy.
    Which is specifically why I and others were careful to point out that the Western Canon did not begin to significantly unfold until the 16th century and this itself was a process that took almost all of 5 centuries to get to where we are today. But, absent some historical references that I’ve managed to miss beginning in my undergrad days, I am totally unaware of any meaningful contribution from sources external to the West of what I defined above as the Western Canon (which, incidentally, is not a McKinney-invented concept).

38. But what’s the comparison? Comparing:
    Asian Americans to…regular Americans?
    Asian Americans to…Americans?
    In which of those comaparisons are Asian Americans not treated as somehow less American or at least outside the American experience?
    The latter of the two: Asian Americans to Americans, minus Asian Americans. And in this comparison is not treating them as less than other Americans or as outside the American experience, he is simply making a comparison.
    I see nothing wrong with making such a comparison, assuming the factual underpinnings are accurate, which I believe them to be, on the whole.

39. My take on history, FWIW, is that the Western Canon is, on balance, far superior to any contemporary society, then or now.
    Shocking news: Member of culture thinks his culture is the best in all of history, film at 11!

40. I am totally unaware of any meaningful contribution from sources external to the West of what I defined above as the Western Canon
    Considering that you included “scientific innovation,” you may want to re-think this one, considering how much we owe to the Islamic world on this front.

41. Then I’ll restate: no one is saying that the “great Western tradition of excellence in Athletics is in decline.” Further, no one is saying that it is in decline because African Americans are over represented. And if they did, the complaint would fall flat because athletic success is achieved solely through effort and ability.
    Sweetness and light McTex, it was a hypo.
    To respond that you’re not going to engage the hypo because it’s all…hypothetical is…not constructive.
    Further, no one is saying that it is in decline because African Americans are over represented. And if they did, the complaint would fall flat because athletic success is achieved solely through effort and ability.
    But educational success is achieved through effort and ability too. And it is claimed to be in decline in America, and the evidence is the over-representation of Asian Americans.
    What is being said, as I take the guy, is that Asian Americans are outworking their contemporaries and this is not a good thing, not because of the Asian element, but because of what it says about everyone else.
    But that’s clearly not what he’s saying even if it is what you are saying.
    1. What he is saying is that the US is losing its traditional work ethic.
    2. As evidence of this, Ferguson points to the over-representation of Asian Americans in universities.
    But you can only use #2 to support #1 if you argue that Asian Americans aren’t really Americans, but some different group that are putting Americans to shame.

42. Now, to try to take your example of athletics, if someone were to say that it’s not a good thing that only [pick your demographic] shows any real interest in athletics and physical fitness and this is a crying pitiful shame for rest of the country, that would not be a complaint that the demographic group in question was pushing others aside, it would be a complaint about all of the other the lard asses (again, biblical ass, not anatomical) who are couching it.
    Yes, that’s exactly my point. Precisely.
    Ferguson isn’t saying it’s a shame for the “rest” of the country. He’s saying it’s a shame for “the” country. And “the West” writ large.
    That’s where he crosses the line.
    He’s saying America is in decline, and the West is in decline, and his evidence is that Asian Americans and Asians are overrepresented, and have a stronger work ethic.
    Clearly, he wants “Americans” to step it up and compete. But by that token, Asian Americans are the ones that need to be competed with by Americans.

43. And in this comparison is not treating them as less than other Americans or as outside the American experience, he is simply making a comparison.
    I see nothing wrong with making such a comparison, assuming the factual underpinnings are accurate, which I believe them to be, on the whole.
    That depends.
    If your thesis is that the, and I quote, “European” Western traditions are in decline, and you use America as your exemplar, and then use Asian American academic performance as evidence, your comparison is not so benign.
    If Asian Americans were truly and entirely American, it would be utterly pointless to say that Americans have lost their work ethic. As proof, this group of Americans is performing well.
    Proof would be comparing Americans (including Asian Americans!) to other nations.

44. Let me try to put it differently, and see if this would make any sense to you:
    1. The US, as exemplar of the West, is in decline.
    2. To support this, I cite a loss of work ethic amongst the American people.
    3. As evidence of #1 and #2, I point to the fact that White, protestant males are overrepresented at universities in America.
    If one were to make that argument intstead of the one Ferguson made, the reader would scratch her/his head.
    That doesn’t make any sense. How could the overrepresentation of one American demographic be indicative of American decline?
    How preposterous.
    It only works as an argument, and as a “comparative” tool, if the American demographic is seen as part of the “Rest” to use his terminology.

45. Considering that you included “scientific innovation,” you may want to re-think this one, considering how much we owe to the Islamic world on this front.
    I am aware of this impression. It is born out by some, but pretty much minimal, evidence. Early on, when science was in its infancy, some very useful insights and discoveries were made in the Islamic world; however, weighed against the whole range of Western accomplishment over the last 500 years, those pale into relative nothingness by comparison.
    Member of culture thinks his culture is the best in all of history, film at 11!
    And the proof is in the number of countries who’ve adopted the basic Canon. I’d be happy to hear from you which societies you think to be superior.

46. The “killer apps,” that Ferguson mentions, along with meritocratic diversity, which Noah Smith mentions, along with imperialism and some other less pleasant things, have resulted in combination to provide an extremely high standard of living for most people who live in the wealthy West. I don’t say that our culture is “superior” in all ways, but it certainly is comfortable.
    Niall Ferguson seems to be afraid that competition from other countries is a threat to our standard of living. I think our standard of living may be unsustainable for other reasons, including failure to care for the environment. Although Niall Ferguson seems misguided (from what I’m seeing here), I don’t think that his views necessarily indicate white supremacy (at least not the portion that’s excerpted either here or in the linked reviews).
    He believes that Asian societies are becoming more effective on the world stage than Western societies, partly because (he believes) they have incorporated a strong “work ethic” into their culture. As evidence for this, he points to the fact that Asians and Asian-Americans (both influenced by Asian culture and its work ethic) do better, academically, than non-Asian-Americans. He assumes that Asia will “win” because it successfully adopted this “killer app” of work ethic. This is because America as a whole has lost the “killer app” since most Americans don’t have it anymore – the only ones who now seem to have it are Asian-Americans (since they were influenced by Asian culture), who constitute only a small part of our population.
    I think he’s wrong about a lot of things that I’ve just described, but I don’t think he’s being a white supremacist, or is saying that Asian-Americans are less American than other Americans.

47. It may surprise you, but there are people in the world who don’t sit around worrying about whether the culture in which they live is OMG TEH BEST EVAR, but rather about how it is succeeding – or not – in allowing its citizens to live decent lives. I know, I know, it’s unthinkable that there are people who don’t see everything as a world historical competition, but here we are.
    This word, “proof,” I do not think it means what you think it means. Trust me when I say that 10,000 years from now, the universe will not give one (1) rat’s ass about “the Western Canon.”

48. “weighed against the whole range of Western accomplishment over the last 500 years”
    Arbitrary, cherry picking timeframes – you’re soaking in them!

49. I don’t think that his views necessarily indicate white supremacy (at least not the portion that’s excerpted either here or in the linked reviews).
    For the record, I did not claim that he was a white supremacist, but that there are undertones – a point both pieces make. And that his work indulges in white supremacist ego stroking – a point the Mishra piece highlights.
    In his books, Ferguson absolves the sins of Western imperialism, extols the benefits bestowed on the target populations, and shows an ahistorical appraisal for just how much Western civilization developed on its own.
    He is also repeatedly stoking fear/anxiety about the loss of “Western” supremacy – which is, as evidenced, infused with a version of “Western” that excludes a good many people.
    Those are not, per se, white supremacist views. But there are undertones, and they do stroke the white supremacist ego.
    I think he’s wrong about a lot of things that I’ve just described, but I don’t think he’s being a white supremacist, or is saying that Asian-Americans are less American than other Americans.
    Again, I didn’t actually say he was being a white supremacist.
    But, for the reasons stated above, I do believe he was saying that Asian Americans are part of the “other.”
    the only ones who now seem to have it are Asian-Americans (since they were influenced by Asian culture), who constitute only a small part of our population.
    Further, this is also not supported by actual data. Asian Americans might punch above their weight proportionally, but the American university system is still dominated by Caucasians.
    Again, a variation to highlight the absurdity of his position:
    1. The US, as exemplar of the West, is in decline.
    2. To support this, I cite a loss of work ethic amongst the American people.
    3. As evidence of #1 and #2, I point to the fact that White, protestant males are overrepresented at universities in America.
    If one were to make that argument intstead of the one Ferguson made, the reader would scratch her/his head.
    That doesn’t make any sense. How could the overrepresentation of one American demographic be indicative of American decline?
    How preposterous.
    It only works as an argument, and as a “comparative” tool, if the American demographic is seen as part of the “Rest” to use his terminology.

50. Those are not, per se, white supremacist views. But there are undertones, and they do stroke the white supremacist ego.

    So, in other words: maybe he’s not a white supremacist, but he’s playing up to them?
    Honestly: I cannot tell what kind of point you’re trying to make, here. If you’re trying to say that some of his stuff might be misinterpreted by white supremacists as being supportive of their worldview, have at it. Or if you’re saying that he’s deliberately playing up to white supremacists so as to boost book sales, please say that. Or that he might not be a white supremacist, but plays one on TV. Or some fourth or fifth thing.
    But this? This is mud, widely flung. I’m not saying you’re doing him a disservice so much as that you’re not being clear.
    Which from me…well, I half-expect you to FedEx me a gauntlet, spring-loaded.

51. Slarti,
    There is a long tradition of the type of ethnic-based, anxiety stoking that Ferguson has engaged in over the course of the past decade, through several books.
    See Mishra’s review for a discussion of same.
    Further, there is a long tradition of apologia for empire (with a distinctive ethnic component) of the type that Ferguson has engaged in over the course of the past decade, through several books.
    He is a pronounced European chauvanist which in itself is not a crime, but his chauvanism is supported by terrible, terrible scholarship (which seems to indicate a predisposition, or a preconceived idea, in search of evidence to support it, rather than the other way around).
    Now, where and what are the motives? Hard to say. But there are, without a doubt, white supremacist undertones to several of his recurring themes: European culture is superior, produced seemingly in a vacuum, and its disemmanation through oft-brutal imperialism has been a massive boon to the benighted masses it has been inflicted upon (who would not have found their way to similar conclusions if left on their own, unplundered by the kind imperialists).
    Now, this isn’t necessarily the crude, overt form of white supremacism that dresses up in white sheets and lynches the coloreds. But rather a more intellectual, softer, chauvanism with supremacist undertones that advocates a very dangerous brand of empire to be enforced at the barrel of a gun.
    This worldview strokes the ego of those that feel ethnically and culturally superior in their whiteness/European heritage, while, again, it doesn’t advocate segregation, slavery or anti-miscegenation.
    Apologies if you find that description muddy. But I blame the raw materials.

52. It has spread beyond the traditional “West” because of its desirability such that the original West may be surpassed by younger, more energetic societies.
    What? There are no such things as “young” societies and “old” societies (with “younger societies being “more energetic”!). Societies are not born, nor do they age and die like organic beings. That’s adopting the organic fallacy straight out of 19th century political philosophy.

53. I had in fact given Mishra’s review a once-over, but it was more of a quick scan.
    I interpreted his point as being more that Ferguson is saying our culture is better because look we conquered some of you and bested some others in the game of commerce, which game stops when I say it does, rather than saying our culture is better because white people are inherently better than any other shape and color of other kinds of people. Heck, we don’t even consider them people at all!
    Probably I need to read more deeply, but to my way of thinking there is a very, very bold line between one kind of thinking and the other, in terms of being worthy of the label “white supremacist”. Spread that label around too much and it gets diluted, and all white people become white supremacists because we’re all racists deep down inside.
    Which I think robs it of no small amount of potency.

54. Again, I didn’t actually call him a white supremacist.
    I said what I said about the undertones, and its appeal to same.
    In retrospect, I would rather that I not used the term at all seeing as how distracting it’s become.

55. PS: The whole notion that the “work ethic” was monopolized by the West, and was not applicable to Asian nations like China, Japan and Korea until the West brought them there is…ridiculous.
    Again, an example of European/white chauvanism with very little to support it. Which is…I don’t know, pick a more neutral term.

56. PPS: My grammar and diction sucks.
    F-ing sleep deprivation is a mind killer.

57. I think the point about Mr. Ferguson is best made without reference to the term ‘white supremacist.’ Noah Smith seems to avoid the term and I think he made the right call.

58. There are no such things as “young” societies and “old” societies (with “younger societies being “more energetic”!). Societies are not born, nor do they age and die like organic beings. That’s adopting the organic fallacy straight out of 19th century political philosophy.
    Really? Pre and post WWII Japan, Korea and Taiwan are not markedly different from one another in myriad ways, the latter being relatively new (young) and the former being ancient (old).

59. Damn. That last sentence should have ended with a question mark.

60. Really? Pre and post WWII Japan, Korea and Taiwan are not markedly different from one another in myriad ways, the latter being relatively new (young) and the former being ancient (old).
    I don’t think that’s a helpful way of looking at things at all. How was pre-war Japan “old”? The institution of the Emperor? Granted that there’s been an Emperor for umpteen hundred years, the Emperor as political leader only dated to the Meiji restoration. And of course Japan still has an Emperor. In 1950 it had a new Constitution, but the Meiji Constitution was promulgated only in 1890, so that in 1941 Japan’s Constitution was actually “younger” that it is today. So I don’t think the biological paradigm presents any kind of useful model.

61. I read some of Ferguson several years ago, probably around 2003-2004 when the white man’s burden was all the rage even among some “liberals” who wrote for the NYT and the New Yorker. We were going to invade Iraq and teach those Ay-rabs a thing or two about how to be civilized. I’m using the term “white man’s burden” somewhat sarcastically and sloppily because I don’t really know that it’s a racial thing with him and others like him–it was really more of a cultural imperialist thing. Ferguson and likeminded types not only think our culture is best–they wanted to impose it at gunpoint. I don’t know that skin color matters to him so much, though maybe it does subconsciously (but then all of us presumably have some nasty things floating around down there.)
    Anyway, I do remember reading one or two of his books on the history of the Empire and/or colonialism and my impression was the same as Mishra–he tended to downplay the truly horrific and massive crimes of imperialism and yes, he would describe some of them while glossing over others. It gives you more credibility if you do that. If I recall correctly, he was very critical of the British in India during the early part of the their rule, but said nothing about the massive (and avoidable) famines in the late 1800’s that Mike Davis wrote about in “Late Victorian Holocausts”.

62. I don’t think that’s a helpful way of looking at things at all. How was pre-war Japan “old”? The institution of the Emperor? Granted that there’s been an Emperor for umpteen hundred years, the Emperor as political leader only dated to the Meiji restoration. And of course Japan still has an Emperor. In 1950 it had a new Constitution, but the Meiji Constitution was promulgated only in 1890, so that in 1941 Japan’s Constitution was actually “younger” that it is today. So I don’t think the biological paradigm presents any kind of useful model.
    Ok, not “young” but “dynamic” or “emerging”. Not “old” but “static” or “ossified.” Whatever. The context here is adoption by other cultures of the Western Canon. Those that have done so recently, as in “new” or “newly”, are doing so enthusiastically. Americans, if I understand Ferguson’s point, or one of them, have grown complacent, they are in a decline, with the exception of some subsets of the whole.

63. I am aware of none
    In terms of cultures outside of the Anglo-American orbit, there’s always Rome.
    The Greeks, of course, are the prime example of a non-Anglo-American polity with representative self-government.
    Less known, the Lycian Federation of the late Bronze age. They’re cited, twice, in the Federalist Papers.
    The Haudenosaunee had (and have) a polity based on representative government and a written constitution since the 15th C. They ruled the American northeast for a couple of centuries.
    The merchants who sailed around the world from Europe to develop the Western “market” economy bought and sold in markets that had existed for a long time, long before they showed up.
    And the Anglo-American “free market” of the 16th, 17th, and 18th C’s was anything but. It was an explicitly mercantile economy, engineered by elite property-owners for the enrichment of the nation and of themselves. Where “the nation” and “themselves” were in many cases indistinguishable.
    Not a free market.
    The US, for most of its first century, operated under the American System, an explicitly mercantilist economic model designed to build the American industrial sector and enhance federal revenue and power.
    Not a free market.
    I see two notable things about the West, and about the English and Americans in particular:
    1. Once the Europeans figured out long-distance navigation, they jumped right into first place in the intensity of their avarice and their willingness to enslave and despoil any other nation they could find their way to.
    2. The English and the Americans most definitely took the lead with the Industrial Revolution, which literally did change the terms of existence for humans on the planet.
    And it’s really the technology that came with the Industrial Revolution that put us “over the top”.
    The latter — the embrace of technology to automate what had previously been the province of brute labor — is what I see the rest of the world adopting as quickly as it can under the heading of “the way the Americans do it”.
    Not transparent representative government, not human rights, not respect for private property. Those things are always in some process of finding, and losing, toeholds in various places.
    But I don’t really see people looking at the US as the model for those things. Not anymore.
    People want to have a car, and a dishwasher, and a nice apartment or house, like Americans do. Our politics and our society, not so much.

64. I think it’s safe to say the Woodrow Wilson, progressive President and all, was certainly a white supremacist. He didn’t hate non-whites, and he wasn’t a NAZI or Klan member, but he did believe in a racial hierarchy, wherein, whites were to bring civilization to the world, and stay at the top of said hierarchy. You couldn’t be a part of US power elites, if you did not believe in the racial hierarchy of the world. There were biological racists, geographical racists, and cultural racists each having a different theory for the reason white supremacy was logical and natural. But in the end, they all believed there is a global hierarchy and the Europeans, who had morphed into white people over the last few hundreds of years, were rightfully and logically, at the top.
    Nail Ferguson’s view, that Western Civilization, as he has understood it, is basically another version of this type of thinking.
    By the way, doesn’t Locke use the Semitic people of the Old Testament, to begin his theory of private rights?
    And if doing well in Universities is so important, why aren’t those hard working Asians represented in the top industries in the US?
    I think a recent article in Harpers? The Atlantic? by an Asian male, trying to complicate the fetishization of the Chinese-American mom (The Dragon Mother?). His argument, that institutions love the stereotype of the well behaved Asian-American student and worker, but they’re just not “leadership material.”

65. Just want to point out, briefly, that when he points to Koreans working more hours and going to school longer than Americans that’s not necessarily an indicator of decline. Does he argue anywhere that Americans are working less than they did in the past or getting less done in those hours or going to school fewer hours than they used to?
    If not, then whence the jeremiad?

66. russell, just speaking for myself, when I’m thinking about the history of Western Civilization, I include Greece, the Roman Empire, then Christian Europe (including Byzantium), then Europe west of the Mongol invasion. I haven’t read much Niall Ferguson, so I don’t know what he thinks, but I’m pretty sure that McKinney wasn’t just referring to Anglo-American civilization when he spoke about the about the end of feudalism. In fact, McKinney specifically mentioned Europe. If you read the “great books” (and there are different collections, but the same basic people are included) they include Greeks, Romans, Europeans, etc. Obviously, Western intellectual history includes those people (including people like Augustine of Hippo – from Northern Africa – part of the Roman Empire). Anyway, any good dead white male would incorporate those cultures into the intellectual historical legacy that formed him.
    I don’t know about the term “superior.” There are chauvinists everywhere, and it’s difficult to be objective about which culture is “superior” or “inferior.” I would suggest that no culture is “superior.” However, Western culture does have some attributes that make me feel comfy here: relative material wealth, some degree of freedom, some degree of participation in government, some acknowledgement of human rights (including racial and gender equality), and probably a lot of other things, including the fact that my family lives near me. These things were hard won (except that my family lives near me), and I think fairly rare.
    If you travel around (which you probably have), I’m sure you’ll see plenty of cool sights and interesting art, lovely music and wonderful stuff. But the degree of freedom and possibility in the West is remarkable. Talk to a Chinese person, and see where s/he wants to go to university. I hope that we can get the USA back on track before we lose it, but we have a really good thing going here.

67. Early on, when science was in its infancy, some very useful insights and discoveries were made in the Islamic world
    You know, when ‘science was in its infancy’, Mohammed had not yet been born. Mohammed’s great-grandpappy to the 25th degree had not yet been born.
    Not that that takes anything away from the Islamic contribution to science.
    Who invented, or more properly discovered, the simple machines?
    Who first tracked the progress of the stars in the sky?
    Who first made a ceramic pot, or a sheet of glass?
    Who first heated and processed some rocks to create tin, or bronze, or iron?
    Who first understood how to combine carbon with iron to make steel?
    Who first discovered how to turn raw plant and animal fibers into paper and cloth?
    Who first discovered how to render an animal’s hide into usable leather?
    Who first learned how to manage fire?
    Who first learned how to heat foodstuffs to make cooked food?
    Who first invented writing?
    Check this out: who first figured out how to bang a couple of rocks together to make a usable sharp edge?
    Check out the Solutrean industry. The sophistication and utility of what those folks accomplished by *banging rocks and sticks together* is absolutely amazing.
    The history of humans generally is so full of absolutely epochal discoveries and inventions that it is, in my opinion, an act of absolute freaking insane chauvinistic hubris to think that any one group of people is any more intelligent, creative, risk-taking, innovative, or in any way able than any other group of people.
    It’s just stupid. Head-in-the-sand, willfully historically ignorant, stupid.
    The ability of the Western nations to impose their will upon the rest of the world was largely due to their being first out of the gate with the technology that came out of the industrial revolution.
    The fact that they were first out of the gate with industrial production was their lucky penny. They stood on the shoulders of giants, who stood on the shoulders of giants, who stood on the shoulders of giants.
    The number of factors giving rise to Western success that come down to sheer dumb luck and circumstance beggar any claim we might want to make to being some special exceptional race, where please construe ‘race’ any way you like.
    Seriously, the lack of perspective and basic common-sense humility behind these kinds of claims just amazes me.
    Here’s another lesson from history:
    To the degree that Americans are lazy / unmotivated / lacking in competitive edge and spark, why do you suppose that is?
    It’s because we are fantastically, stupendously wealthy. We have more than we could possibly know what to do with. We piss away more, in terms of sheer raw resources, than most nations live on.
    If you gave me a knife, a fishhook and some line, a blanket, a tarp, some rope, a big box of matches and two gallons of water, and dropped me in the woods, I’d probably be dead in less than a week. 99% of the people I know, same/same.
    We’re soft and lazy because we’re rich and we not only no longer know how to do for ourselves, we don’t even know what ‘do for ourselves’ means. We think if we wake up in the morning, take a shower, put on presentable clothes, and do something constructive in an office somewhere for 50 hours a week, we’re ‘doing for ourselves’.
    The ‘big achiever’ groups, with the fires in their bellies, are folks who haven’t been here that long yet, and for whom every day in the US is like living in a world where they can pluck golden coins from the air if they just have the energy to reach out and grab them.
    To the degree that ‘white folks’ are on the decline, it’s because we’ve come to believe the golden coins should just fall in our pockets by some weird law of nature.

68. Nail Ferguson’s view, that Western Civilization, as he has understood it, is basically another version of this type of thinking.

    You might think of it that way, or you might think of it as cultural supremacy. Which is also not nice, but distinctly different in character. Particularly when cultural supremacy includes people from multiple ethnic descents. Maybe some people will disagree with this point of view, but it’s where my disagreement is coming from.
    Look, I think Eric is now regretting his phrasing, for one reason or another, so I am going to give this horse just one more whack, and be done with it. Where I am coming from is here: phrasing like “undertones of white supremacy” to me means that there is white supremacy at work here, overtly or covertly. If Eric did not mean to imply either of those (and, by the way, I don’t have a problem if he does make one of those claims if it’s substantiated), I have no quarrel with him.
    Not that it was much of a quarrel to begin with.

69. South Korea is not majority Christian. It seems to break down like so:
    1/4 Buddhist
    1/4 Christian
    1/4 Atheist
    1/4 Non-really religious, maybe vaguely Buddhist, kind of sort of.

70. We’re soft and lazy because we’re rich and we not only no longer know how to do for ourselves, we don’t even know what ‘do for ourselves’ means. We think if we wake up in the morning, take a shower, put on presentable clothes, and do something constructive in an office somewhere for 50 hours a week, we’re ‘doing for ourselves’.
    Ummm, if we do that, we are “doing for ourselves.” We don’t have to be roofers to be “doing for ourselves.” Of course, we can make our own pies and clothes, and grow our own veggies, and keep bees and chickens on our off-hours. But we live in an economy where we have the luxury of 1) going to the store, 2) going to a restaurant, 3) working at a store, 4) working at a restaurant, 5) going to a bank, 6) working at a bank, 7) reading a book, 8) writing a book, 9) selling a book, 10) publishing a book, 11) litigating someone’s copyright in a book, 12) writing a program that tracks book sales, 13) running a program that tracks book sales and interpreting the results ….
    All of those things, in part, constitute “doing for oneself.”
    russell, you really need to go be a roofer again. Why’d you ever give it up?

71. We’re soft and lazy because we’re rich and we not only no longer know how to do for ourselves, we don’t even know what ‘do for ourselves’ means.
    That could have been taken verbatim from Sallust bemoaning the decadence of the late Roman Republic. Which of course proceeded to dominate the Mediterranean basin for the next 500 years and remained a significant regional power for at least another 500 more in the form of Byzantium. All of which is to say that “decline” tends to be in the eye of the beholder.

72. The world-wide influence of the Western Canon is largely the result of the world-wide influence of Western cannons, not its intrinsic superiority. Now other people have cannons, too, which tends to equalize things a bit.
    I agree with Eric (and Russell, too, as usual). The notion that medieval Europe was all barter-based, with vassals getting land and attendant serfs in exchange for service to their feudal lord, is way too simplistic. What about northern Europe’s Hanseatic League, or the city states of Italy?

73. The world-wide influence of the Western Canon is largely the result of the world-wide influence of Western cannons
    And Western cannons were the result of the Western Canon, of course. Which includes Europe, of course. Which includes northern Europe and Italy (don’t forget about the Renaissance and everything else included in the concept of Western Christian Civilization – Greco-Roman empire, Shakespeare’s plays about Italy … ). Sorry people, but didn’t you ever take a Western Civilization class? When we talk about the Rise of the West, we’re including all of the things you’re mentioning. So is Niall Ferguson!
    Not to say that I agree with Niall Ferguson. But please let’s get it straight what we’re talking about here.

74. “And Western cannons were the result of the Western Canon.”
    What? Literature led to improved armaments?
    “Sorry people, but didn’t you ever take a Western Civilization class?”
    Why yes, in fact I did. And my teachers, excellent historians all, cautioned me about making the sort of sweeping generalizations Ferguson makes.
    I think Eric’s fundamental point is correct. Ferguson is the darling of those who, although perhaps not racists, believe that Western civilization is somehow superior and mourn the passing of the days of Kipling’s burden.

75. russell, someone should give you an award. It has been an absolute delight to read you over the years.

76. “Russell, someone should give you an award. It has been an absolute delight to read you over the years.”
    Seconded, from this frequent lurker.

77. […] the Western Canon (which, incidentally, is not a McKinney-invented concept)

    Indeed not; it’s an argument about books and literature and art, and which should be taught and how.
    I’m not following how the commonly-known concept of “the Western Canon” relates to that which you call by the same name, McK. You:

    And the proof is in the number of countries who’ve adopted the basic Canon.

    Is that Library of America, or Modern Library, Harold Bloom, Harvard Classics, Penguin Classics, University of Chicago Common Core, or… what?
    What countries have adopted “the Western Canon” in teaching literature, let alone shaping their entire educational system, let alone shaping their entire culture?
    The non-Western countries, particularly, that is?

    The context here is adoption by other cultures of the Western Canon. Those that have done so recently, as in “new” or “newly”, are doing so enthusiastically.

    Could you perhaps name three countries as examples? If so, thanks.

78. Ferguson wrote an entire book about the glories of the British Empire. (Mind you, he wrote another entire book about how the British should not have fought against the Germans during World War I.) It’s fairly obvious that he’s a reactionary, and while this doesn’t automatically make him a white supremacist, it suggests uncomfortable leanings in that direction.
    Oh, by the way, on the subject of non-Western polities which are not tyrannies, both the amaXhosa and the baTswana of South Africa evolved non-tyrannical chieftainships — in the Xhosa case based on distributed rule focussed on a nominal but actually almost powerless king, and in the Tswana case based on democratic debates called lekgotlas.
    The West came in and stomped that all flat in the nineteenth century. But we did get Bibles and Martini-Henry rifles, so it all evens out.

79. The whole notion that the “work ethic” was monopolized by the West, and was not applicable to Asian nations like China, Japan and Korea until the West brought them there is…ridiculous.
    Yes, but like every lie it needs a grain of truth to be effective. Why did Japanese manufacturing surpass American? For a large part because they adopted the statistical process control and leadership ideology of W. Edwards Deming – a “prophet” who was not accepted in his home country.
    Edwards Deming was also a devout Christian, and promoted the idea of the leader as someone who serves, helps others – not an idea entirely unique to Christianity, but an idea pretty radical to the strongly authoritarian Japanese culture. And maybe Weber’s theory of the “protestant work ethic” is dubious, but Edwards Deming believed in it, because certainly he encouraged taking pride from your work itself rather than the wealth or status it may give you (and also taking practical steps to remove things that prevent workers from feeling proud about their work, e.g. quotas which encourage sloppiness).
    So let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Cultures do carry with them ideological baggage to the others the come in contact with, and some of this baggage is genuinely good. There’s bad baggage too, of course, but it’s by no means certain that it always add up to zero for all cultures.

80. That could have been taken verbatim from Sallust bemoaning the decadence of the late Roman Republic
    And he would have had a point.
    The question under consideration is why some populations within the US appear to have more drive than others.
    My observation is that, all other things being equal, the more generations you are away from some form of privation, the more you take for granted.
    It’s certainly not an original thought on my part.
    russell, you really need to go be a roofer again. Why’d you ever give it up?
    Actually, I liked framing more. It has more of an interesting puzzle-solving side to it.
    But I gave both up for the same basic reason. Fear of heights.
    I have no regrets, the software thing has worked out fine, and it’s an easier trade to get old in.
    Long story short, for me, is that I find Ferguson and people like him tedious.
    There’s no freaking magic Western pill that we all ate that makes us supermen and women.
    Nations and civilizations wax and wane. Ours is in the process of doing so, just like every other one ever has or will.
    We bring some good things to the table, and some absolute crap.
    For someone to call themselves a historian and simultaneously display such a simplistic, one-sided, myopic view of human history boggles my mind.
    And above and beyond all of that, arguments like Ferguson’s always seem to come bundled as apologia for why we really do, after all, deserve to rule the world.
    So, I find them suspect.
    We in the US did well to embrace the ideals of representative government, rule of law, and individual civil rights. We *did not* invent these things, they have a long history, but we did well to recognize their value and embrace them.
    We also did well to steal the early technical industrial innovations of the Brits and then build on them to make ourselves wealthy. If nothing else, it gave us an alternative to a future as the world’s largest onshore slave-based plantation economy.
    None of these things were a given, none of them were inevitable, none of them occurred without significant resistance from folks here in the good old USA.
    But these two particular things won their respective days. Good for us.
    Every other nation and group of people on the planet have their own fates to work out. What we do may be a good fit for them, or may not. More likely, some parts may be and some parts, not.
    It’s not our hash to settle.
    We are not the answer to the world’s problems. As a matter of fact, we have our own problems to solve without worrying about telling everybody else what to do.

81. russell, someone should give you an award. It has been an absolute delight to read you over the years.

    Total agreement from this quarter.

82. Where I am coming from is here: phrasing like “undertones of white supremacy” to me means that there is white supremacy at work here, overtly or covertly. If Eric did not mean to imply either of those (and, by the way, I don’t have a problem if he does make one of those claims if it’s substantiated), I have no quarrel with him.
    I think “undertones” has an actual definition, and it doesn’t mean what you say it means Slarti. I regret using it, because people are focusing on that phrase, and misconstruing how I am using it to describe Ferguson’s work.
    Someotherdude’s comment does a good job of capturing my intent, and what I meant by “undertones” and that his work strokes the ego of white supremacists.

83. his work strokes the ego of white supremacists

    Eric, his words do not have their own agency. They don’t have any intention other than his. Either he’s doing the stroking, or the white supremacists are stroking themselves with it. Which (latter) presumes more than I think you can substantiate, now that I think of it, unless you have some particular people in mind that you haven’t mentioned for some reason.
    Possibly there’s some middle that’s being excluded, here, but I’m damned if I can see it.
    Please consider this (now, anyway) an excercise of my own personal clarity, rather than a critique of yours. If you want to just chalk Ferguson’s purported white-supremacist undertones (to which I am, evidently, tone-deaf) up to collective white man’s guilt (or something similar), fine.
    This my-culture-is-the-best can be cast as racist point of view, but it’s at the very least pervasive even from one European nationality to the next, which is why (in my youth at least) there were whole jokebooks written about Poles and Italians and Frenchmen. And, incidentally, why Frenchman and Englishman weren’t instant, fast friends from the moment they espied each other from a distance, and spent centuries fighting each other for dominance. With occasional diversions into battle with the Dutch and Germans.
    None of the above is meant to dismiss the existence of actual white supremacists, or to claim that Ferguson isn’t in any way racist, but more to see if “strokes the ego of white supremacists” is simply a slur, or an accusation that has some merit to it. I don’t think there’s any middle ground there. I’d guess that if I’d said that about you, or you about me, neither of us would be seeing a middle ground.

84. Slarti,
    Can I give that dead horse on more whack?
    You might think of it that way, or you might think of it as cultural supremacy. Which is also not nice, but distinctly different in character. Particularly when cultural supremacy includes people from multiple ethnic descents.
    Ferguson includes all the ethnicities that fall under the European/White framework, which makes my point. He obviously doesn’t see the advances of Asian-American ethnicities as part of the US’s strength. At least the “melting-pot thesis” folks, as much as that theory had its own faults, included all races and ethnicities in the strength of growing empires.
    Harald Korneliussen
    W. Edwards Deming was certainly a Christian, but more to the point, he was a Presbyterian, or some High Church Calvinist. He wasn’t Roman Catholic, nor was he a Pentecostal. I bring that up because you follow the observation with Weber’s Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which really should have been called The American Calvinist Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber had a more nuanced understanding of Protestantism than the title reveals. And his case studies, was primarily the US, and not say overwhelming Calvinistic Scottish highlands, who did not enjoy the fruits of the Industrial Revolution, and could only become successful imperial subjects, if they left Britain. He also only saw value in Methodism as it contained it Calvinist influences. In other words, it’s Calvinist Protestantism that made Industrial Capital possible. How much of Calvinism influenced the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian Churches?
    Questioning Aspects of the Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism
    And Weber doesn’t include the ability to exact mass death and genocide on non-European groups. Although his other works recognizes the influence of the states’ ability to monopolize violence, but I think he only was concerned with “citizens”. One wonders how successful the Capitalist project could have been, if it afforded the victims of the Protestant work ethic, the exact same rights and privileges Euro-Christians assumed they had.
    And I do say this as a practicing Calvinist (Orthodox Presbyterian).

85. Again, what someotherdude said.

86. I think the point about Mr. Ferguson is best made without reference to the term ‘white supremacist.’ Noah Smith seems to avoid the term and I think he made the right call.
    The Mishra piece used that term, and other variations of white superiority, more than I did.
    And Noah Smith said this in reference to Ferguson’s approving citations of Charles Murray (Charles effing Murray!):
    When you admit to taking your cues from America’s most prominent academic racist, you’ve pretty much laid your cards on the table.
    This makes me sick, and not just because of the racism. It’s because Ferguson’s offhand exclusion of non-whites from the “Western” world is, in fact, what I believe to be the biggest threat to our civilization.
    I’d say that my “white supremacist undertones” is mild in comparison. I’d also like to repeat that the white supremacism I’m discussing has softer, more intellectual edges – not the KKK version in support of segregation, slavery or anti-miscegenation, to repeat myself.
    It’s a form of chauvinism-plus that I think would be hard to read “out” of Ferguson.

87. …if “strokes the ego of white supremacists” is simply a slur, or an accusation that has some merit to it. I don’t think there’s any middle ground there. I’d guess that if I’d said that about you, or you about me, neither of us would be seeing a middle ground.
    Some people are proud to be white supremacists (or European chauvinists), while others try to dress it up as something else. People in the latter category don’t like being recognized, which isn’t really relevant to whether or not they actually are white supremacists (or European chauvanists). “You wouldn’t like it if I said it about you” likely has no bearing on the truth of the statement in question.
    I can’t say if Eric is right or wrong about Niall Ferguson because I haven’t read anything that I can recall by or about the guy before this blog post, which probably isn’t supposed to be a stand-alone proof of Niall Ferguson’s European chauvinism.
    I guess my question to you, slart, is why you feel the need to defend Ferguson. Do you have a greater familiarity with him than I do, such that you’ve formed an opinion on his thinking that differs from Eric’s? Or is it just that Eric’s post doesn’t prove its point to you, all by itself?

88. I got interrupted by a phone call while typing that last one. A number of comments hit in the interim. If it looks like I was piling on, I wasn’t.

89. Safe to say that my grammar and diction will continue to be atrocious for the near future.
    Apologies in advance and for past occurrences alike.

90. I’m not defending Ferguson, hsh; I’m simply looking for the basis for even the mention of white supremacy. The basis for which, so far, seems weak in my estimation. It’s a fairly serious kind of insinuation, in my opinion.

91. This is what did it for me:
    Labeling Asian Americans as “non-Western” gives away the game completely. By “Western,” Niall Ferguson is not referring to a geographic region, a political system, an economic system, or a religion. He is not even referring to a specific set of countries. He is referring to a set of people; people who have pale pinkish skin, fine wavy hair, and prominent eye ridges. By “Western,” Niall Ferguson means “white people.” Asian Americans may have American passports, Ferguson thinks, but civilizationally speaking they are permanent foreigners.

92. And Noah Smith said this in reference to Ferguson’s approving citations of Charles Murray.
    I agree with that, although I have to admit I read a lot of Kevin MacDonald’s stuff. I get ideas and find avenues to hunt down, as a result of his research, but because of his “Euro-Chauvinism” (his words), and because a lot of outright racist organizations embrace him, I have to find more “legitimate” academics that share and agree with certain numbers and theories. Eric Kaufmann and Steve Bruce share tiny threads with him, without the biological and cultural European “pride” ;-).

93. “You wouldn’t like it if I said it about you” likely has no bearing on the truth of the statement in question.

    Proving/disproving wasn’t the intention of the statement; it was instead what the statement was prompting.
    someotherdude’s explanations (that Eric keeps deferring to) do to white supremacy something like what mortgage-backed securities did to bad loans. IMHO, of course. Not picking at the scholarship, just noting how diluted white supremacy is looking (to me) at the end of the explanation.
    Having finished this two hours later than I started it, I probably missed some important discussion. I’ll catch up on any of that when I get a chance.

94. Who invented, or more properly discovered, the simple machines?
    Depending on how you define a machine, e.g. fulcrum/lever, wheel, paddle, no one really knows. Wheels showed up maybe 5000 years ago in the mid-East.
    Who first tracked the progress of the stars in the sky?
    Maybe the Beaker People, assuming that’s who build Stonehenge, and assuming the question encompasses using higher math as a part of tracking celestial movements.
    Who first made a ceramic pot, or a sheet of glass?
    IIRC, the first pottery shards are found in Turkey circa 10K years ago. I could be wrong.
    Who first heated and processed some rocks to create tin, or bronze, or iron?
    Well, you are talking about a time frame of several thousand years here. The Bronze Age and Iron Ages are largely associated with the mid-East and south eastern Europe, though I couldn’t say whether the technology migrated from farther east or not.
    Who first understood how to combine carbon with iron to make steel?
    I am pretty sure this was a European/mid-Eastern advance.
    Who first discovered how to turn raw plant and animal fibers into paper and cloth?
    Probably the Egyptians.
    Who first discovered how to render an animal’s hide into usable leather?
    No one knows, probably Neanderthal, depending on how you define “usable”.
    Who first learned how to manage fire?
    Maybe Neanderthal, depending on how you define “manage.” More likely homo sapiens.
    Who first learned how to heat foodstuffs to make cooked food?
    If you mean as a routine, systematic practice, probably homo sapiens.
    Who first invented writing?
    The Ur civilization, predating Sumeria.
    Check this out: who first figured out how to bang a couple of rocks together to make a usable sharp edge?
    Homo erectus made the first hand ax, which remained pretty much the standard tool kit, along with very crude scrapers, until about 40k years ago, when there was a major shift in the stone tool kit. Thereafter, the sophistication level was fairly slow in developing even as other indicia of culture, e.g. Lascaux and other sites, fertility statues, etc, are found contemporaneously.
    Check out the Solutrean industry. The sophistication and utility of what those folks accomplished by *banging rocks and sticks together* is absolutely amazing.
    I have. It was a big step up from the hand ax, but still left a lot of room for improvement. The most refined examples of stone working are 12K and less years back.
    The history of humans generally is so full of absolutely epochal discoveries and inventions that it is, in my opinion, an act of absolute freaking insane chauvinistic hubris to think that any one group of people is any more intelligent, creative, risk-taking, innovative, or in any way able than any other group of people.
    Who is saying this? Not me. First of all, none of the questions you raise address systematic, applied science or a social contract that respects individual rights and gives individuals a say in how they are governed or the rule of law or any of the other indicia of the Western Canon. The Western Canon is one end product of a vast range of social forces—war, famine, religion, philosophy, technology and so on. The governing model for every culture of historical significance was some form of feudal autocracy with the exceptions of Greece and Rome for parts of their history and neither survived other than has traditions for later generations to study and adapt to their own needs. This, meaning some form of feudal aristocracy, was the case in Europe and the rest of the known world . You can pick your point of departure: the Magna Carta, the Renaissance, whatever. My take is that the Renaissance is the clearest marking of the genesis of the individual being focal point of a society. It took centuries for that notion to evolve into modern liberal democracy and plenty of bad things happened along the way. Systematically applied and studied science, literature, the printing press, spreading literacy and so on can trace from that time period. There is nothing comparable in recorded history, including Rome.
    None of this is the product of European brilliance or superiority. The mid-East—modern Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Palestine—is the not called the Cradle of Western Civilization for nothing. None of those peoples were Europeans. Europeans, at the time, painted themselves blue and collected heads. They were barely Neolithic, country rubes, what have you.
    What distinguished Europe, for a variety of historical cause/effect reasons, from, say, China or Japan was the dynamic change in social structure for a period of 500 hundred years beginning in the late 15th century. During this same period, Asia, the mid-East and India remained relatively static. Neither the dynamism nor the conservatism of the various cultures has any kind of ethnically induced feature.
    The end result of the “West’s” dynamism was a better social and economic order than feudalism. Which is why the Canon is migrating, and will continue to migrate, and why it will evolve in a variety of ways as it does so. Conceptually, the Canon is no different from gunpowder. Regardless of who invented gunpowder, it is superior as means of projecting something than a drawn bow or an atlatl. The Canon is the same: it is a concept that works better than competing concepts.
    Indeed not; it’s an argument about books and literature and art, and which should be taught and how.
    This is part of it, not all of it. I defined it generally. Whether you think the name fits, the substance of what I intended by it is set forth clearly and if you’d prefer another name, I’m fine with that.

95. Regardless of who invented gunpowder, it is superior as means of projecting something than a drawn bow or an atlatl. The Canon is the same: it is a concept that works better than competing concepts.
    Ironically, or not, Ferguson’s call-to-arms often center around the notion that “non-Western” peoples have adopted the Western Apps and are using them better than us.
    Why this is a problem…well, why?
    Enter the less savory underbelly of what he’s discussing…

96. I can’t seem to get Pink Floyd out of my head right now, specifically:
    us…us…us…
    and…
    them…them…them…
    Is this guy just a more hoity-toity version of Pat Buchanan?

97. Is this guy just a more hoity-toity version of Pat Buchanan?
    Exactly the way a good friend put it.

98. Why this is a problem…well, why?
    Now we are on the same page. Don’t we want everyone to be free, have the rule of law, equality of opportunity, blah, blah, blah? Wasn’t one of the underlying principles of neo-conservatism that democracies don’t make war on other democracies? That the people, given a choice, will opt for peace over war?

99. But, oddly, McTex, Ferguson sees that as a problem.
    Slarti,
    For the sake of our discussion, would you consider Pat Buchanan a white supremacist? I would – at least, I would consider his ideas as in close proximity to some of Ferguson’s writings on the same spectrum.
    Pat’s most recent work, The End of White America, is microcosmic. A sampling from Pat’s book:
    http://bit.ly/twgcWF

100. Buchanan is a bigot, anti-Semitic, etc. How is that different from a supremacist? Degree, kind, what?

101. I suppose those terms all have a certain variation in degree.
     As I’ve said repeatedly, Ferguson’s form of chauvanism (white supremacism) does not take the form of advocating for slavery or segregation.
     Though Buchanan seems to recall favorably the period encompassing the latter.

102. ‘Ferguson’s popularity itself is evidence that we’re not exactly living up to some of the more exalted principles of Western civilization.’
     What does this mean? And what authority is judging the ‘evidence’?
     I read through the post and the links, but not Ferguson’s book. There seems to be much mingling of ‘American’ and ‘Western’. I don’t see the things Eric does, or the reviewers, for that matter.
     The major forces forming the base of what we see as America today were Anglo-European, often referred to as Western. The combination of economic, political, and social constructs coupled with the land and other important natural resources and isolation from hostile threats enabled this ‘Western’ cultural product to flourish and become the wealthiest ever.
     Now, although the remnants of this history are yet dominant players on the American landscape, that dominance is fading (not a bad thing, in and of itself). The diminishment resulting from the growing influence of those from other cultural traditions is an example of this not being a bad thing. The diminishment resulting from a loss of mojo on the part of the American civilization that has grown too comfortable with its prior success and accumulation,consumption, and waste of wealth is sad. I don’t know that these are all Anglo-Americans, or even Western European, there are lots of others who have been here long enough to get comfortable, as well.

103. ‘Ferguson’s popularity itself is evidence that we’re not exactly living up to some of the more exalted principles of Western civilization.’
     What does this mean? And what authority is judging the ‘evidence’?
     1. Shoddy, hack-ish scholarship should not be celebrated, but critiqued and then ignored. The scientific method, and rational thought, demand as much. Failing to apply those standards to Ferguson’s work, and instead catapulting him to intellectual celebrity, is a failure on our part to live up to Western Civ standards.
     2. Ferguson’s chauvanism and racialist ideas should not be celebrated.
     3. Everyone is welcome to judge this. Based on the evidence of his writings, and critiques/defenses thereof. As measured against documented history.
     The diminishment resulting from the growing influence of those from other cultural traditions is an example of this not being a bad thing.
     Ferguson would disagree. His views on immigration speak to this.

104. I’m a huge fan of russell’s too, which is why I enjoy challenging what he says.
     I have a book by Niall Ferguson which I’ve not bothered to read. It looked like a book that someone I know would have liked, so I bought it as a gift. Then, when I read stuff about him (and it), I decided to keep it on my hidden shelf. I don’t intend to invest the time until I have a lot more time.
     But I had fun with this quotation that I found on Wikipedia, attributed to Ferguson with regard to his new wife:
     “[She] grew up in the Muslim world, was born in Somalia, spent time in Saudi Arabia, was a fundamentalist as a teenager. Her journey from the world of her childhood and family to where she is today is an odyssey that’s extremely hard for you or I to imagine. To see and hear how she understands western philosophy, how she understands the great thinkers of the Enlightenment, of the 19th-century liberal era, is a great privilege, because she sees it with a clarity and freshness of perspective that’s really hard for us to match. So much of liberalism in its classical sense is taken for granted in the west today and even disrespected. We take freedom for granted, and because of this we don’t understand how incredibly vulnerable it is.”
     To me, this sounds a lot like what russell said. We’re too lazy and comfortable; it’s the hungry newcomers – people who have first-hand experience with “doing for themselves” who are able to appreciate what we have. And this attitude isn’t white supremacism or anything like it. Which isn’t to say that he’s a worthwhile historian, scholar, economist or anything else – I don’t know, so I won’t comment. But racist? I don’t see that. To me, he sounds like russell. (Sorry, russell!)

105. Ferguson would disagree. His views on immigration speak to this.
     Does he oppose all immigration, immigration of those lacking sufficient education to function in our modern economy, immigration of folks of the wrong color, where does he draw the line, if anywhere?
     One can have issues with large numbers of unskilled laborers arriving permanently in one’s country and not hold racist or supremacist views. It’s the unskilled aspect of the immigrant in question, not pigmentation that drives the issue for some of us.

106. Here’s one Ferguson article on immigration. Maybe not dispositive.

107. Just for the record, white supremacy as an ideology, dominated the West. It came in violent forms, progressive forms, loving forms, despicable forms, but it always resided on the assumption that Europeans and their settler colonies were the culmination of the greatest humanity had to offer, and it informed the notion of the “White Race.” European culture and the white race were constructed as one and the same. It was fncked up, and ignored the mixing it took to create European culture, but the view that European success and power was the same as saying White people were a success and powerful.
     The idea that white supremacy was only something Klansmen and NAZIs engaged is ignoring how the idea of “racism’ was constructed. There were Slave owners, who sincerely loved their slaves that did not mean they stopped being white supremacist. Your feeling concerning other races, whether you hated, loved, ignored, jealous, liked, appreciated, detested them didn’t matter. As long as you assumed that there was a hierarchy of races and whites were at the top, your feelings about other races didn’t matter. That’s been the idea of racism, the violent stuff of the Klan and NAZI’s, was a desire to go back to the more traditional forms of aggressive separation.

108. someotherdude, I don’t really like the term “white supremacy” as you define it, because it seems to mean “western chauvinism.” If you travel anywhere in the world (well, I don’t know about “anywhere,” but many, many places), you’ll find a “better than thou” attitude prevailing. This has been mentioned previously. I mean, Asia is rampant with “we’re the best.” The French are famous for it. When I went to Ireland in the early ’90’s, the people I met were all about “We’re the black people of Europe!” But as soon as they got rich and had immigrants coming to Ireland, they were all about “They’re polluting our culture!”
     I mean, quit hating on people who live in the West who appreciate the benefits of their culture. Everybody’s doing it.

109. I assure you, I’m not hating on Western Culture. I myself have totally embraced secular Protestantism, which is particular to a subset of the West. And even more, I have embraced its Anglo-Protestant incarnation. But I’m neither a triumphalist nor an apologist for it. And I’m not going to assume that it should be universalized. Nor do I believe it is supposed to remain on top of any hierarchy, and I don’t believe it should fully dominate a pluralistic society, but it has certainly created the structure of society I’m a part of, and I appreciate its warts and its beauty. But I’m not going to ignore its tragedy.

110. I guess, someotherdude, rereading your comment, I don’t really understand what you’re saying. I draw a distinction between people who hate other racial groups, or think of themselves as racially superior, and people who are comfortable in their own culture and believe it to be “the best.” Obviously, most people are blinded by their own experience and preferences – no one is objectively “the best.” But to the extent that Western culture has developed a comfortable standard of living (and, true, this also involves greedy use of the world’s resources, etc. – not denying that), but also freedom of expression, academic freedom, etc. – this stuff is good. Other cultures respect and admire and want it. It’s true. Go to China (for example) and ask someone. And we want what they often have – focus and drive.
     That doesn’t mean that Chinese people don’t think they’re better than we are: they frequently do. And they have things that are extremely wonderful: Chinese medicine, Chinese food, Chinese martial arts, Chinese opera. Chinese culture is ancient and significant and beautiful and good. And they have pandas!
     But, for the most part, I prefer living in the West for a lot of reasons, and what’s wrong with that? Does that make me a white supremacist?

111. sapient,
     pointing out the downsides of that kind of attitude makes it easier to deal with it when it arises or is noted in other places. Noting that it is part of human nature certainly makes it more understandable, but you seem to be waving it away precisely because it is part of human nature.
     Acknowledging also helps one have a clearer vision of what are the truly good points about a particular culture rather than a reflexive defense of everything in that culture. Maintaining that there is nothing to see helps to blind people to the constraints that then have them make assumptions based on the way things are, not realizing that what they see is actually the end of a long chain. If you have another term for it, go for it, but until you propose one, it seems strange to not to talk about it.

112. Sorry, someotherdude, I didn’t see your more recent comment before I posted mine. I’m not sure that we disagree.

113. lj, chauvinism is a part of human nature, it’s true. At least let’s assume that it’s true.
     Then we have to ask the question: if everyone thinks that they are “the best,” is there any way that we can, as members of the global community, be objective, and decide: which aspects of which cultures should I adopt as my own, and promote in my society?
     I think that it’s fair to ask that question: to try to dislodge ourselves from our own natural prejudices, and decide what kind of society (borrowing from the intellectual riches of the world) we want. Is it fair, then, as a matter of opinion, to say that we think that, in political terms, the “Western Democratic political tradition as exemplified by the United States Constitutional government” is what we want? Is it fair to choose that without being accused of being white supremacists?

114. Arguments about “the best” are as useful to me as people who are always claiming their family is the best. After awhile, I begin to get suspicious. I love my family, warts and all, and it has a lot of room for improvement. And if one thing Calvinism has taught me, even the mightiest fall. Placing a nation, culture, person on a pedestal is tantamount to idolatry. Even my father and mother are humans, not Gods. And the fact I believe my family is wonderful, but I don’t believe they get to dictate other families.
     Or as a beautiful degenerate nihilist wrote:
     I met a traveller from an antique land
     Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
     Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
     Half sunk, a shatter’d visage lies, whose frown
     And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
     Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
     Which yet survive, stamp’d on these lifeless things,
     The hand that mock’d them and the heart that fed.
     And on the pedestal these words appear:
     “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
     Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
     Nothing beside remains: round the decay
     Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
     The lone and level sands stretch far away.

115. sapient,
     Saying ‘that thinking implies white supremacy’ is different, I think, than saying ‘you are a white supremacist’. It is the difference between saying a comment is trolling and the person is being a troll. You are asking sod and me why you are being accused of being a white supremacist when neither of us have done that.
     You also try to frame this in terms of political traditions. Yet this discussion has people invoking literature, scientific development, success and access to higher education. In fact, political tradition in Ferguson’s list is only one of 6 items, and is listed with rule of law, which doesn’t overlap completely with political tradition, I think. So when you ask what ‘we’ want, you are slicing out a huge part of the discussion in order to claim that some notion of white supremacy (or whatever term you would prefer) doesn’t obtain here.
     Even restricting it to “Western Democratic political tradition as exemplified by the United States Constitutional government”, there are any number of points that I think could be supplemented or even replaced. as an example, this Jeffrey Toobin article about Justice Kennedy’s interest in foreign law decisions and how they inform US decisions. Now, you can simply claim that these decisions come from the same root of Western jurisprudence, but you are the one who narrowed this down to ‘United States Consitutional government’.

116. Yes, we loves our Shelley.
     And I don’t want my family “to rule” either – except to rule themselves.
     I have a little more trouble when thinking about my own political preferences. For example, I would have preferred Roosevelt’s democracy (warts and all – warts including Japanese internment) to Hitler’s NAZIism – and even would have gone so far to imposed my beliefs on Germany. (Sorry if that’s Godwin – just an example that we all know.)
     So, current events: Somalia is undergoing great humanitarian and political crisis. Are the people there “our neighbors”? What responsibility do we have, if any? Just asking. To what extent are we “white supremacists” if we seek a solution? Maybe there is no solution. We should just watch.

117. I suspect self defense was the driving force, to our involvement, as opposed to imposing our view of political philosophy. And Japan’s influence, instead of its treatment of its colonized, was the driving force to our blocking of its oil imports. If Germany committed genocide, within its own borders, the US would not have given a fnck.

118. There seems to be much mingling of ‘American’ and ‘Western’.
     Yes.
     The major forces forming the base of what we see as America today were Anglo-European, often referred to as Western.
     To interject (hopefully) briefly, ‘Anglo’ and ‘European’ are significantly distinct cultural traditions in a lot of ways.
     Common law vs civil law, for one example.
     The US generally falls on the Anglo side of that divide. Although other traditions are found here as well.
     ‘The West’ can, and often does, mean anything that happened on the geographic continent of Europe in the historical period, by which I mean since people started writing stuff down.
     So, Homer, the Eddas, and the Domesday Book are ‘Western’, while dolmen builders and the painters of Lascaux, less specifically Western.
     From the tiny scrap I know about Ferguson, when he talks about ‘the West’ he is talking about Anglo-American culture, from about the 18th C to date.
     It’s a notable, but fairly small, slice.
     Also, thanks to all for the kind words, but there are a ton of thoughtful articulate people here.

119. I didn’t know Ferguson was married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I think that shows he’s not a white racist in any conventional sense, but she is famous for her criticisms of Islam, which veer well over into Islamophobia at times. She says we are at war with Islam (not radical Muslims who support terrorism, but Islam) in an interview with Reason Magazine–
     link
     She and her husband are two of a kind.

120. If Germany committed genocide, within its own borders, the US would not have given a fnck.
     And, in fact, didn’t, for quite some time. I just recently finished reading Erik Larson’s “In The Garden Of The Beasts,” which chronicles the ambassadorship of William Dodd, first US ambassador to Hitler’s Germany, and it’s quite clear that when it came to the matter of Germany’s treatment of its Jews, we were very much Not Interested. Nor, for that matter, were we terribly interested in their treatments of Polish Jews, Czech Jews, French Jews, Dutch Jews . . .

121. From the tiny scrap I know about Ferguson, when he talks about ‘the West’ he is talking about Anglo-American culture, from about the 18th C to date.
     I don’t know whether that’s the case or not. If it is the case, maybe it’s just another indication that he’s a sloppy and imprecise scholar. As I’ve said, I’m not familiar enough with his writings to know.
     Obviously there are cultural differences between Europe and the Anglo-America, and for that matter between England and America, and for that matter between the various nations of Europe, and for that matter the various regions of nations. But when I think of the West, and when “Western Civilization” is taught in schools, it includes Europe. Just peruse Google for textbooks and courses on the subject, and you’ll see what I mean. And when the term “the West” is used, as opposed to “the East” or “the Occident” as opposed to the “Orient” – well, you get it.

122. She says we are at war with Islam…
     Well, if anyone has an excuse for hating Islam, it would be a woman who was raised in the faith and who was a victim of female circumcision. Not to say that I agree with her views (although I think they might be worth considering).

123. Slarti,
     For the sake of our discussion, would you consider Pat Buchanan a white supremacist? I would – at least, I would consider his ideas as in close proximity to some of Ferguson’s writings on the same spectrum.

     To the extent that Buchanan sees Western culture as supreme, no. To the extent that Buchanan sees Caucasians as extreme, yes.
     I’m going by my definition of white supremacy, of course, which seems to disagree with yours. I really haven’t read enough Buchanan to tell exactly where he lies on the culturalist/racist axis. But he says a lot more things about the color of people’s skin than I would think someone concerned strictly with culture would say.
     That may or may not be the case with Ferguson; I haven’t noticed that about him.
     Sorry if I’m being terse and dismissive, but I’m sick and worn out and generally extremely grouchy. It’s nothing serious, just not enough sleep, too much exercise, and a cold with flu-shot side-effects piled on top. I don’t mean to take it out on anyone.

124. Just peruse Google for textbooks and courses on the subject, and you’ll see what I mean.
     Yes, sapient, quite so. And, if you’ll forgive my caps, THAT IS MY POINT.
     ‘The West’, as a category, is very broad. When Ferguson et al go on about ‘the West’, they are talking about something much more specific. They are talking about Anglo-American culture since about the 18C.
     None of which is an argument for or against anything they, or you, or anyone has to say, it’s just an attempt to clarify what we’re talking about.
     We’re not talking about social democracy, or Scandinavian socialism, or labor-centric collectivism, to name just a few of the very prominent styles of social organization and political culture found in modern Europe. And we are certainly not talking about anything pre-modern.
     The topic under discussion is, specifically, Anglo-American political and economic institutions and culture from about the 18C on.
     If I understand it all correctly.
     And, why does that matter? Because that political and economic culture is rooted in traditions that are somewhat unique to a time and place. A large-ish time and place, but a particular one nonetheless. Those traditions are absolutely not universal, nor will they ever be. Nor should they be.
     In many places, the idea that a society should be organized around competition between private individuals seeking to amass the greatest possible gains for themselves would seem, frankly, toxic. Sociopathic. Insane.
     That’s what we like to do here, and we sort of make it work most of the time. It’s not a good fit for everybody, and in fact may well yield toxic, sociopathic, and insane results in cultures with roots and traditions different from our own.
     You discuss, upthread, the idea of folks ‘adopting’ selected aspects of our culture. I would respectfully suggest that a better choice of verb would be ‘adapt’.
     All caps do not fit all heads. Not all institutions are transferable. Everyone doesn’t want to live the way we do. Nor should they.

125. They are talking about Anglo-American culture since about the 18C.
     Do you have any examples of this? Because his wife was a member of the Dutch parliament, and I think it’s clear that when she is talking, she’s referring to Europe as well as the US when she talks about the West. Maybe you have some examples of how he uses the term “West” more narrowly? You may be absolutely correct in this, but basically I object to the idea that people (beginning with Eric) characterize Ferguson’s views as “white supremacist” and now we’re arguing whether he is or not by some opinion we have about his use of language. None of this is borne out by any examples of what he’s said.
     As to the word “adapt,” it’s kind of a subject/object thing, I think: people adapt when they retrofit themselves. People adopt certain things in order to adapt. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

126. Slarti,
     To the extent that Buchanan sees Western culture as supreme, no. To the extent that Buchanan sees Caucasians as extreme, yes.
     Pat Buchanan and Kevin MacDonald, (VDARE) both consider themselves, old school “racialists” and as such, still seem to have a problem with “lesser whites” if they ever considered European Jews part of the white race. And many hard-core Zionists seem to agree with them.
     Good Books on the subject:
     The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity by Eric L. Goldstein
     How Jews Became White Folks: And What That Says About Race in America by Karen Brodkin
     The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand and Yael Lotan
     The Jewish Radical Right: Revisionist Zionism and Its Ideological Legacy by Eran Kaplan
     And a nuanced view of European/White Jews and Arab Jews, from the wife of a Neo-Conservative
     Post-Zionism and the Sephardi Question
     Russel,
     We’re not talking about social democracy, or Scandinavian socialism, or labor-centric collectivism, to name just a few of the very prominent styles of social organization and political culture found in modern Europe. And we are certainly not talking about anything pre-modern.
     Exactly and why do Calvinist traditions in Switzerland, Canada, Northern Europe and Scotland more likely to embrace social democracy (and with racist overtones in South Africa) and were less likely to trust “The Free Market”, while it becomes associated with Social Darwinism in the US.

127. Slarti,

     Not to brush you off or otherwise dismiss what you say, but Buchanan doesn’t interest me. At all. I regard him as a crank. I regard people who pay him any heed as cranks. Learning more about him is a kind of psychoanalysis of mental illness that just doesn’t interest me.
     Which is not to say that others aren’t free to dissect what he has to say, just that it doesn’t hold any fascination for me.

128. We’re not talking about social democracy, or Scandinavian socialism, or labor-centric collectivism, to name just a few of the very prominent styles of social organization and political culture found in modern Europe. And we are certainly not talking about anything pre-modern.
     The topic under discussion is, specifically, Anglo-American political and economic institutions and culture from about the 18C on.
     Well, you actually have forced me to crack his book, The Ascent of Money. In the first chapter he seems to talk about Spain, the Incas, various Italian city states, Portugal, Netherlands, oops – there’s London and Memphis. Then he talks about France, Germany, Austria, the American Civil War, London and Germany. A few words about Sweden and Norway, although I don’t see anything about Denmark.
     Anyway, he’s not just talking about Anglo-America.

129. who’s got the work ethic now? The average South Korean works about 39 percent more hours per week than the average American. The school year in South Korea is 220 days long, compared with 180 days here. And you don’t have to spend too long at any major U.S. university to know which students really drive themselves: the Asians and Asian-Americans.
     The work ethic sucks. Or, rather, unless you’re one of the lucky people who really and truly enjoys going to work each day (and god bless you), the idea that an extra 40 percent of time spent at work, or 40 extra days at school, is somehow indicative of a glorious society is kind of perverse. Why not view these reduced burdens as the rewards of a wealthy society?

130. Ugh, I totally agree. I wish we’d fix our economy by recognizing that we know how to provide for all our our needs, so let’s distribute the wealth fairly, and then pursue our own interests. (That system might result in Tony P. or someone with similar talents discovering something even more amazing than this, though it’s hard to imagine.)

131. I mean, quit hating on people who live in the West who appreciate the benefits of their culture. Everybody’s doing it.
     A note on this, and where I think Ferguson’s brand of chauvanism becomes most virulent: He doesn’t just say, “The West is the Best, hooray for us”!
     He says, “The West is the Best, its colonization of non-Westerners was an enormous benefit to the colonized AND America needs to be less squeamish about the fact that it is, and SHOULD be an “empire” – further spreading the benefits of the West to the benighted masses. If necessary, at the barrel of a gun.”
     On definitions of “The West”:
     One of the problems is that Ferguson himself is a notorious cherry picker in terms of classifying good things as “The West” and bad things as “The Rest” – often ignoring obvious if inconvenient counterexamples and contrary evidence.
     I said something very early on to defend my charge of white supremacism (which, again, someotherdude does very well to explain a few comments up):
     The thing about Ferguson isn’t only that he says the West is the best, hooray. Or that he uses that as a call for more empire, faster please, but that his scholarship is so utterly selective/sloppy/tendentious.
     That, to me, betrays a bias – a predisposition in search of evidence, rather than a scholarly inquiry that reaches a given conclusion BECAUSE of the evidence.

132. On immigration: As noted by Mishra, Ferguson is also notoriously fickle, and known to contradict himself in a short span of time.
     He has, at other times, sounded much harsher on immigration issues, particularly in Europe.
     But thanks for that link either way. A much more sensible take from him than I have seen elsewhere.

133. The thing about Ferguson isn’t only that he says the West is the best, hooray. Or that he uses that as a call for more empire, faster please, but that his scholarship is so utterly selective/sloppy/tendentious.
     That, to me, betrays a bias – a predisposition in search of evidence, rather than a scholarly inquiry that reaches a given conclusion BECAUSE of the evidence.
     Well, my little thumb tour through his book supports the idea that it is a very light treatment of the subject matter. But that’s about my speed, I suppose, so I guess I really should read the thing. From what I’ve read about him, he doesn’t represent my political perspective by any means, but whether he’s a thoughtful historian is a different issue. I guess I should form my own conclusion about that from what he writes.

134. As to the use of the term “white supremacy” I think you were right to backtrack on that, Eric. That term connotes racism, pure and simple. You may disagree that Western-style democracy is the bees knees and shouldn’t be imposed on countries that don’t have it – but people who believe that aren’t necessarily racist. They might be described as “democracy militants.” (I’m sure other people would come up with other terms that are more widely-used – neoconservative comes to mind – but to me, there’s other “baggage” with those terms.)
     I don’t think a zealous belief in Western-style liberal democracy – even to the point of forcibly exporting it – makes one a white supremacist. Again, I’ll have to read his work more thoroughly to make a fair evaluation.

135. Anyway, he’s not just talking about Anglo-America.
     To be honest, all I know of Ferguson are some articles (including the one cited) and what I’ve heard him say in public fora. Haven’t read any of his books.
     Likewise, I have no idea what his wife thinks, about anything.
     I’ll also confess to a prejudice against Ferguson arising from his “embrace your role as an empire” crap from the Bush days.
     So, my apologies.
     All of that said:
     Folks that see the pre-eminence of Western Europe and/or the US as being primarily due to the superiority of our culture annoy the living crap out of me.
     Culture’s a factor, but it’s certainly not the only one. Sheer dumb luck helps, as does (in our case) the availability of a virtually unexploited continent’s worth of astounding natural resources.
     And the cultural factors are not universally positive ones. They include not only our famous work ethic and risk-taking natures, but our willingness to exploit and, literally, enslave other folks, where and when we could pull it off.
     Not just other folks, for that matter, quite a number of our own folks.
     None of that is unique to us, but neither are we immune to it. And it’s a very large part of why we are, collectively, as rich and successful as we are.
     And, as noted above, the argument frequently – not always, but frequently – comes bundled as an apologia for why we deserve to be the world’s hegemon.
     It just seems rude, and myopic, and historically ignorant, to me.
     When I say ‘folks’ here, I am not talking about you, sapient. I have been talking about Ferguson, perhaps unfairly. My apologies if so, as noted above my exposure to Ferguson’s work is very limited, and is perhaps biased towards stuff that would tend to bug me.
     But there is no shortage of people who fall under the umbrella of ‘folks’, as I’m using it here.

136. Folks that see the pre-eminence of Western Europe and/or the US as being primarily due to the superiority of our culture annoy the living crap out of me.
     The problem with statements like this is that we do have features of our “culture”, if I am understanding the freight “culture” is intended to carry, that are objectively superior, even if it has taken us a while to evolve to our present level of advancement, and not intending to imply there isn’t room still for further advancement. For example: the rule of law, equality of opportunity, women’s and minority rights, individual liberty, a variety of fundamental rights (free speech, free press, etc), democracy (flawed, but better than anything else) and so on.
     These all arise, or arose, from our culture too. Due regard for the objectively positive things we, the US, brings to the table, is not a bad thing.

137. Due regard for the objectively positive things we, the US, brings to the table, is not a bad thing.
     How does this make russell’s statement problematic? Is it a matter of what constitutes “due regard?”

138. As to the use of the term “white supremacy” I think you were right to backtrack on that, Eric
     I just want to point out, for about the tenth time, that I never called him a white supremacist.
     I said his writing has undertones, and if you’re familiar with the genre, works that fall within its type almost always do.
     His are no exception.
     It’s a shame that saying his works had such undertones became the focus, and in that sense I regret it, but as a commentary on the undertones of his work, I don’t backtrack at all.

139. It’s a shame that saying his works had such undertones became the focus, and in that sense I regret it, but as a commentary on the undertones of his work, I don’t backtrack at all.
     Well, just to clarify, I viscerally react to the use of your use of the term “white supremacist” the same way I react to people who who mention “anti-Semitism” (whether it be “undertones” or whatever) whenever someone complains about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, etc. It’s not fair, and it’s not relevant when people are arguing about policy. Again, maybe I will change my mind when I read his book.

140. Well, just to clarify, I viscerally react to the use of your use of the term “white supremacist” the same way I react to people who who mention “anti-Semitism” (whether it be “undertones” or whatever) whenever someone complains about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, etc. It’s not fair, and it’s not relevant when people are arguing about policy.
     I agree with you on that, and have the same visceral reaction when people apply that term without reference to the actual text when someone writes about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. It is indeed uinfair, and not relevant either, in many circumstances.
     Not all, of course, but much of the time.

141. “Well, if anyone has an excuse for hating Islam, it would be a woman who was raised in the faith and who was a victim of female circumcision. Not to say that I agree with her views (although I think they might be worth considering).”
     I agree that it is understandable that someone with her life story would come to hate Islam, but don’t see why her bigoted views should be worth considering. She thinks we should be at war with “Islam”. What is worth considering here? The particular criticisms she has of barbaric customs are no doubt correct, but she goes well beyond that.

142. Right. I think what “might be worth considering” – and even understanding and feeling compassion for – is why she has such animosity in the first place. But I don’t know that it lends any credence to her broad-brush condemnations of an entire religion.
     Note: Female circumcision is a cultural phenomenon, not practiced in most Muslim countries, or by the vast number of Muslims worldwide.

143. I didn’t remember Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s at first (one of my cultural ineptitudes is being unable to remember non-Western names), but I did read about her in connection with the Theo van Gogh murder, and I’ve heard her interviewed, perhaps when she was on a book tour.
     The interview that you linked to, Donald (thanks for that), shows that she’s quite extreme, for sure. I’m not saying that I agree with her. But her views aren’t garden variety bigotry, and they’re worth thinking about.
     For example, one point she made was interesting:

     Reason: Tolerance is probably the most powerful word there is in the Netherlands. No other word encapsulates better what the Dutch believe really defines them. That makes it very easy for people to say that when they’re being criticized, they’re not being tolerated—and from there it’s only a small step to saying they’re being discriminated against or they’re the victims of Islamophobia or racism or what have you.
     Hirsi Ali: We have to revert to the original meaning of the term tolerance. It meant you agreed to disagree without violence. It meant critical self-reflection. It meant not tolerating the intolerant. It also came to mean a very high level of personal freedom.
     Then the Muslims arrived, and they hadn’t grown up with that understanding of tolerance. In short order, tolerance was now defined by multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures and religions are equal. Expectations were created among the Muslim population. They were told they could preserve their own culture, their own religion. The vocabulary was quickly established that if you criticize someone of color, you’re a racist, and if you criticize Islam, you’re an Islamophobe.
     Reason: The international corollary to the word tolerance is probably respect. The alleged lack of respect has become a perennial sore spot in relations between the West and Islam. Salman Rushdie receiving a British knighthood supposedly signified such a lack of respect, as did the Danish cartoons last year, and many other things. Do you believe this is what Muslims genuinely crave—respect?
     Hirsi Ali: It’s not about respect. It’s about power, and Islam is a political movement.

     She’s talking here about the Netherlands. But what’s interesting to me is seeing religion (including the Christian right) as a political movement rather than a religion. I was taught as a child very strictly to “tolerate” other people’s religions. I wasn’t allowed to ridicule or denigrate someone else’s religious beliefs. I was raised Catholic in an area of the country where Catholicism was unpopular, so religious tolerance was very important to my family. (I no longer consider myself Catholic, fwiw.) But her definition of “tolerance” rings true to me.
     But now, look at the Republican party making a political point of religion at every juncture. “Tolerance is about agreeing to disagree without violence” (and in our country it also means without political retribution). As she says, tolerance is about not tolerating the intolerant. That’s an interesting and worthwhile thing to consider. When religion is politicized to the extent that people have to prove their faith as a political point, it becomes a political ideology, and it’s not then worthy of toleration. The term “bigotry” doesn’t apply to being opposed to a political ideology. I guess my disagreement with her is on the subject of “moderate Islam.” But I think it’s worth exploring further why she thinks that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. And the exercise might be instructive when thinking about a variety of religious/political issues here in the US.

144. McK:

     First of all, none of the questions you raise address systematic, applied science or a social contract that respects individual rights and gives individuals a say in how they are governed or the rule of law or any of the other indicia of the Western Canon. The Western Canon is one end product of a vast range of social forces—war, famine, religion, philosophy, technology and so on.

     Could you please give a link or two to some source on this “Western Canon”?
     I’m entirely serious that I don’t know very well what you’re referring to, save in a very guess-worky kind of way, since so far as my highly limited knowledge goes, you seem to have made up your own meaning for the phrase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon.
     The above is what the term means.
     Instead of what the term means in any and every standard English usage, you seem to be using it as some sort of synonym for “Western civilization” — rather than a reference to an actual canon made of actual books — but what you are and aren’t including in that, and what you’re deriving your assertions about, I can’t tell, since “the Western Canon” means something that you don’t mean.
     Just the word “canon” doesn’t appear to make sense, to me, the way you’re using it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon
     Switching to another point in this thread: can I start a new argument if I assert that Ferguson is an enthusiastic imperialist, or can we take that as given?
     I’m uninterested in arguing over whether the phrase “white supremacist” is applicable to Ferguson since, in my view, this sort of thing, when not made utterly explicit, tends to boil down to emotional feelings as to when such terms are or aren’t too offensive in discussing how far or not someone has gone.
     But I’d suggest, after decades of reading Ferguson, that he has a general overwhelming bias towards Anglo-Saxon/American/European peoples and their accomplishments, and a profound tendency to see all through that lens, while, at best, giving vastly too little credit to the rest of the people’s of the world, and at worst certainly making any number of readers familiar with his work finding a generalized charge that he thinks the world of “white” people for inventing The Best Stuff, to the point where he’s always made it clear that he thinks That Stuff would be well-delivered at the point of a bayonet.
     I think it’s pretty clear if one reads his actual books, or even a handful of his lengthier essays, but as always, such views are subjective, which is why arguments about labels, absent metrics, tend to be problematic, and more emotional than objective.

145. Is this guy just a more hoity-toity version of Pat Buchanan?
     Exactly the way a good friend put it.

     Oh, they’re very very diffent, to anyone familiar with them in detail. Ferguson is British, and sees the Empire as the model for the U.S.; Buchanan goes completely in the opposite direction, and is isolationist.
     Buchanan is a fervent pro-Catholic extremist to the point where those views (and that of sister Bay) completely dominate and formed his views; Ferguson shares none of that.
     Buchanan pines for his childhood slice of 1950s America; Ferguson pines for Rudyard Kipling.
     Etc.

146. I don’t think one should tolerate violence in one’s society. Hey, that’s what other societies are for–we can bomb them instead. But half-serious bitter cynical jokes aside, I just don’t think she adds any value to the discussion. I’m not very fond of a certain type of secularist who eagerly embraces war with religious fanatics and then informs us that all of Islam is the enemy. She’s not the only one. There’s Hitchens. Then there is Sam Harris, who makes my blood run cold–I would no more trust him than I would John Hagee.
     In America, I agree that there is bigotry against atheists and people who make a point of linking Christianity or any religion with fitness for political office have just made their own beliefs fair game. Rightwing Christians think they have some sort of monopoly on “moral issues”, which somehow has come to mean how one uses one’s genitals. When people put their beliefs out there and shove them down other people’s throats and make them part of politics than they should expect their religious beliefs to be subjected to harsh criticism. But I fail to see what this has to do with the views of someone who thinks we should be at war with Islam.

147. But racist? I don’t see that.

     I find it useful to actually read an author’s writing before evaluating the author’s writings.
     I find it odd that quite a few folks seem to find that entirely dispensable. To be sure, it saves time.
     Ferguson’s views on immigration are complex and appear to have evolved somewhat over the years, and it’s not a point I’d particularly hit him about, myself, but here’s a long piece by him from 2004, including:

     […] The French historian Alain Besancon is one of a number of European intellectuals who detect a significant threat to the continent’s traditional Christian culture. The Egyptian-born writer Bat Yeor has for some years referred to the rise of a new ”Eurabia” that is hostile in equal measure to the United States and Israel. Two years ago, Pat Buchanan published an apocalyptic book titled ”The Death of the West,” prophesying that declining European fertility and immigration from Muslim countries could turn ”the cradle of Western civilization” into ”its grave.”
     […]
     Still, it is hard not to be reminded of Gibbon — especially now that his old university’s Center for Islamic Studies has almost completed work on its new premises. In addition to the traditional Oxford quadrangle, the building is expected to feature ”a prayer hall with traditional dome and minaret tower.”
     When I first glimpsed a model of that minaret, I confess, the phrase that sprang to mind was indeed ”decline and fall.”

     Ferguson is relatively even-handed in much of his writing about European immigration and population shifts, and I don’t find him particularly comparable to Pat Buchanan, whose bigotry is overt and I’d assert as incontrovertible.
     Ferguson is indeed far more intellectually respectable, but I do think it fair to describe much of his work as, shall we say, tending towards a rather consistent bias.
     Whether it’s a defensible bias is pretty much what folks in this thread are arguing about.
     I’d suggest if folks want to argue about it, they read at least a couple of Ferguson’s books, and a few tens of thousands of words of his essays, rather than going by a couple of reviews and a quick Google, but that’s my own bias.
     someotherdude:

     […] The idea that white supremacy was only something Klansmen and NAZIs engaged is ignoring how the idea of “racism’ was constructed.

     Just so.
     sapient:

     someotherdude, I don’t really like the term “white supremacy” as you define it, because it seems to mean “western chauvinism.”

     Not at all. I suggest reading up on the history of the pseudo-science of “race” and how it was constructed.

     […] But to the extent that Western culture has developed a comfortable standard of living (and, true, this also involves greedy use of the world’s resources, etc. – not denying that), but also freedom of expression, academic freedom, etc. – this stuff is good. Other cultures respect and admire and want it. It’s true. Go to China (for example) and ask someone.

     Do Chinese people, and most people, want to be comfortable? Darn tooting.
     Is there a mass desire in China for “freedom of expression”?
     Views appear to be quite mixed. There are a lot of Chinese. But in general, stability and economic growth seem to be a higher priority for many, if not most, Chinese, although it’s really impossible to know, given the CP’s domination over news and communications there.
     Incidentally, current world views on China’s rise.

     But, for the most part, I prefer living in the West for a lot of reasons, and what’s wrong with that? Does that make me a white supremacist?

     No, not at all. This is why I suggest you read up on the history of the construction of the idea of “race.”
     Believing that a particular “race” is superior is to believe in pseudo-science. Believing that a particular culture is superior to another may or may not be a silly argument, depending on how it’s made and how specific or over-general it is, but it’s not at all the same as belief in racial superiority.
     The whole pseudo-science is largely a 19th century European invention.
     I have to agree that you don’t understand what someotherdude is saying. Louis Agassiz and Arthur de Gobineau, for instance, weren’t talking about culture at all. They and their ilk worked off nonsensical beliefs in craniometry, phrenology, and similar, um, mistaken ideas.

148. russell:

     Folks that see the pre-eminence of Western Europe and/or the US as being primarily due to the superiority of our culture annoy the living crap out of me.
     Culture’s a factor, but it’s certainly not the only one. Sheer dumb luck helps, as does (in our case) the availability of a virtually unexploited continent’s worth of astounding natural resources.

     Cut to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel.

149. sapient:

     Again, maybe I will change my mind when I read his book.

     I commend your interest in reading his writing, but The Ascent of Money seems largely irrelevant to this discussion; I suggest trying Colossus: The Rise And Fall Of The American Empire, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, and probably one I haven’t read, his most recent, Civilization: The West and the Rest, as far more relevant.
     A bit of context on Ferguson, for what it’s worth:

     […] Whilst at Oxford he became best friends with Andrew Sullivan based on a shared love of right-wing politics and punk music.[12] He became a Thatcherite by 1982, identifying the position with “the Sex Pistols’ position in 1977: it was a rebellion against the stuffy corporatism of the 70s.”[13] Whilst at university “He was very much a Scot on the make…Niall was a witty, belligerent bloke who seemed to have come from an entirely different planet.” according to Simon Winder.[12] Ferguson has stated that “I was surrounded by insufferable Etonians with fake Cockney accents who imagined themselves to be working-class heroes in solidarity with the striking miners. It wasn’t long before it became clear that the really funny and interesting people on campus were Thatcherites.”

     As I said, for what it’s worth.

150. What is interesting (to me anyway) about the large majority of works in the ‘Western Canon’ (and we can argue which works are canonical or not) is that they are often written by outsiders. Socrates (speaking through Plato), the Old testament, Jesus and Paul in the New Testament, up through people (chosen semi-randomly) like Milton, Charles Dickens, James Joyce, William Faulkner, Jane Austen, etc, so when the idea of the canon is invoked, what seems to be missed is how subversive the stuff they wrote was at the time. In fact, the whole idea of a canon often feels like those processes where they try to dispose of nuclear waste, in that the real content is so hot, you have to isolate it from the public by by covering it with concrete. At least that’s my image. The link Gary gives has Searle saying that a lot more elegantly
     Precisely by inculcating a critical attitude, the “canon” served to demythologize the conventional pieties of the American bourgeoisie and provided the student with a perspective from which to critically analyze American culture and institutions. Ironically, the same tradition is now regarded as oppressive.

151. arguments about labels, absent metrics, tend to be problematic, and more emotional than objective

     This, pretty much, is the direction my argument was intended to take. I suppose it would have been much quicker to ask Eric to show me some undertones of white supremacy or some white supremacist ego-stroking.
     My feeling in these matters is along the lines of: if you’re making that kind of statement, it’s especially important that you be able to back it up, rather than refer those inquiring for basis to the works of other people.
     None of which is, as I’ve repeatedly said, defensive of Niall Ferguson; rather it’s defensive of my idea of basic decent behavior.

152. Due regard for the objectively positive things we, the US, brings to the table, is not a bad thing.
     This is a very fair point. And I get it.
     It’s extremely clear that, by many, many measures of general social goodness, that modern western society – Europe, the US, Australia – are excellent places.
     Japan, certainly in the post-war period, should also be included in that list.
     But broadly speaking, ‘the West’, and countries that organize themselves in ways that ‘the West’ does, are good places to be. All things considered, better places than most other places.
     So, no argument from me on this.
     And, that goodness, or superiority if you will, is largely related to the political and social institutions that we have evolved over the last few hundred years.
     Again, no argument.
     What I disagree with is this:
     First, I disagree that the institutions we have developed are the only ones that are capable of delivering the quality of life that we enjoy. In fact, for a lot of our history, they didn’t deliver them to us. They still don’t, for a lot of people. And I’m not just talking about our material advantages, although I include them.
     The institutions we have developed work well *for us*. They might not work as well elsewhere, because other groups of people *don’t necessarily share all of our values*.
     Individual autonomy, competition, the ‘work ethic’ as we understand it, are in fact characteristic of our culture. They are not necessarily part of other cultures, and in fact are viewed as anti-social in many places.
     So *our particular social and political institutions* are not going to be a good fit in those cultures.
     Second, IMVHO to argue that the quality of life we enjoy is primarily a function of our culture / values / political and social institutions ignores all of the many other factors that come into play. A lot of our privileged position in the world is a function of luck.
     Nothing wrong with luck, it’s just not really good form to confuse it with virtue.
     It’s also not completely clear to me that all of the qualities that drive our current success are going to work *for us* beyond the short term.
     It’s not just that we can’t afford for everyone to live like we do. I’m actually pretty sure that we can’t afford for *us* to live like we do.

153. The institutions we have developed work well *for us*. They might not work as well elsewhere, because other groups of people *don’t necessarily share all of our values*.
     I’d propose that there’s something like the inverse of the paradox of thrift at work when it comes to the sustainability of everyone trying to live like “we” do. I’ll just leave it at that for now and see if it goes anywhere.

154. Or I could have just paid attention all the way to the bottom of russell’s comment the first time. So, never mind.

155. Gary,
     I’m referring to the work of Reginald Horseman, Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism, Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social Identity Edited by Allen J. Frantzen and John D. Niles and David Stannard’s American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, which does a comparative analysis between Spanish Roman Catholicism and Anglo-Protestantism. In all these books, and most books about the development of racial ideas, in Western colonialism, the idea of race begins with religion, culture and geography. Biological pseudo-science was last, and after its popularity, culture and religion and geography, become the focal point, once again.
     Haven Perez

156. Thanks for your elaboration and pointers, someotherdude!

157. re: China:
     Freedom of expression (art)
     Schools
     Which is not to say that China wants to be America. But a substantial number of Chinese people are wondering wtf is going on that artists are persecuted. And Chinese people admire American education – for now anyway. In those areas, I kind of want to continue to “live like we do” (except always working to be better), and when other people want to “live like we do” it makes me want to help.

158. I have read about 4 of Ferguson’s books but almost nothing of his other writings. The impression I got is that he drifted from a fairly neutral stance ever more to the Right. To use a rough brush:
     “If Britain had kept out of WW1 she would still have her empire” => “Oh how glorious that empire was. What a pity that it is no more” => “The US should take up the baton Britain has dropped” => “Oh no, the US is slipping” => “The US HAS TO go MORE Social Darwinist or it will fail in its mission”. The natural next step would be “Oh no, the US has failed too. Who will now keep the torch alight?”. As far as the British Empire goes, I see a lot of a “unfortunately eggs have to be broken in omelette manufacture” mindset. Maybe even a hint of Turgidson. Not yet in the (again WW1) territory of “In the end we will have one platoon left and they won’t. Then we win.”

159. Which is not to say that China wants to be America. But a substantial number of Chinese people are wondering wtf is going on that artists are persecuted.
     For a country with a population like China, for almost any issue at all, you are going to have ‘a substantial number of Chinese’. I think a better way to look at China or really any other country, is ‘what are people from country X going to tolerate?’ That admittedly sets the bar a lot higher, but I think that is a feature, not a bug.

160. Who will now keep the torch alight?
     I think it’s Canada’s turn next. Them, or New Zealand.

161. All things considered, better places than most other places.
     I’d be interested in knowing which non-Western countries you think compare favorably with the West. I include Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore in the West.
     They might not work as well elsewhere, because other groups of people *don’t necessarily share all of our values*.
     Ok, but what is working well elsewhere? Where is autocracy superior to democracy? People ruled by fiat rather than the rule of law? Is Sharia comparable to equality under the law, regardless of sex, age, race, religion, etc?
     Individual autonomy, competition, the ‘work ethic’ as we understand it, are in fact characteristic of our culture. They are not necessarily part of other cultures, and in fact are viewed as anti-social in many places.
     Where are these places and how are they comparable, objectively, to the quality of life (including individual liberty) that characterizes the West?
     A lot of our privileged position in the world is a function of luck.
     Luck didn’t get our natural resources out of the ground and into a finished product, nor did it allow a society to evolve to the point where we openly debate relatively minor aspects of our rights and freedoms, the vast majority of which are already settled law and custom and thus are beyond debate.
     It’s also not completely clear to me that all of the qualities that drive our current success are going to work *for us* beyond the short term.
     Agreed. This is the soft underbelly of a system that allows politicians to tell people they can have more and more and never have to pay for it.
     the sustainability of everyone trying to live like “we” do.
     This is a more than fair point. Malthus may have been on to something. At some point, we run out of non-renewables, and then what?
     I think a better way to look at China or really any other country, is ‘what are people from country X going to tolerate?’
     My daughter just returned from Rwanda. Prior to that, I attended a small chat with Bob Krueger, who was the US Ambassador during the genocide. Seems to me that some folks are willing to tolerate a lot if it’s inflicted on someone else. Majority acquiescence in oppression seems more like a bug than a feature to me.

162. I’d be interested in knowing which non-Western countries you think compare favorably with the West. I include Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore in the West.
     I believe this is known in technical circles as “rigging the game.”

163. Where is autocracy superior to democracy?
     I wasn’t aware that I was arguing that autocracy was superior to democracy.
     I don’t think you will find the word ‘sharia’ anywhere in any comment I’ve made here.
     If your bar for a place being ‘western’ is ‘not governed by an unaccountable autocrat’, then yes, McK, you win the day. ‘The west’ has a clearly superior and more successful culture, and one better suited to the conditions of modern life than the alternatives.
     Your argument here seems to be that since modern representative government had one of its earliest and most successful manifestations here in the US, that any place that now has some form of modern representative government is therefore ‘western’.
     To me, that is like arguing that we are all really Iraqi, because we employ a written alphabet.

164. Your argument here seems to be that since modern representative government had one of its earliest and most successful manifestations here in the US, that any place that now has some form of modern representative government is therefore ‘western’.
     To me, that is like arguing that we are all really Iraqi, because we employ a written alphabet.
     Well, I suppose that is what I am saying, since the use of the written word originates in the Ur civilization. The West’s contribution to liberality is more proximal in time and in cause/effect.

165. Majority acquiescence in oppression seems more like a bug than a feature to me.
     It’s a feature in that it prevents us from making huge sweeping claims about what is related to what. Rather than saying ‘wow, this person or group (who may have other reasons for doing whatever they do, but superficially, it looks like something we want (cf Rush Limbaugh’s embrace of the Lord’s Resistance Army)) wants exactly what we want!’ and then arguing that all the people in country X just long for the same things we do, we actually look at what it is that really gets the mass of people moving. It’s a bummer that it requires so much to move people to do things, and it would be nice if less were required, but being twitchy often has people jumping to conclusions and pre-judging before they know the facts (and then operating on those pre-judgements), so it seems like a wash in that regard.

166. Rush Limbaugh embraced the Lord’s Resistance Army? I didn’t know that. Not that there is anything surprising about an ideologue embracing a group of killers, but what’s the ideological motivation here?

167. Here’s a link that answers my own question–
     link
     It seems the motivation for Limbaugh are as follows–
     1. Obama sent troops after them
     2. The word “Lord” appears in their name, which made Limbaugh think they were heroic Christians fighting the Muslim fanatics.
     Limbaugh appears to have been taken aback to find out that people say the LRA commits atrocities. And Erickson at Red State says they don’t kill Muslims. My sense is that if they were fighting Muslims the atrocities would be easily overlooked.

168. It’s a feature in that it prevents us from making huge sweeping claims about what is related to what.
     Got it. Please consider my comment withdrawn.

169. Rather than saying ‘wow, this person or group (who may have other reasons for doing whatever they do, but superficially, it looks like something we want) … wants exactly what we want!’ and then arguing that all the people in country X just long for the same things we do,
     First of all, who is “we”? “We” is as much of a generalization as “all the people in country X.”
     What I’m saying is this: there are a bunch of people in China supporting Ai Weiwei, even though 1) it’s difficult to find out about him and his troubles since China censors everything, and 2) it’s risky to support him. Even so, there are a lot of people supporting him. What I would conclude from that is that there is at least a significant group in China who want to support the free expression of artists, some of whom are willing to take risks to do so.
     Many Tibetan monks have immolated themselves within the past several weeks. They aren’t “tolerating” things, but they don’t see a whole lot of hope in change through an organized political movement. (Here’s a link.) We don’t know how many people “tolerate” the conditions that Tibetans live under, or just don’t feel that they can make a significant change.
     Lots of Chinese people (including wealthy, powerful people, but also others) want to send their kids to the US to study. They go through all kinds of extreme measures to do so. That says something positive about the reputation of US schools throughout the world. Obviously, from the article I linked to, the school situation is a mixed bag. But why not be happy (I am!) that we still may have something to offer – especially to young, hopeful students?
     Chinese people don’t want to be American. Even when they come here, they don’t want to be American. I wouldn’t want to make Chinese people be American. It’s fun to visit China and see the little babies with the slits in their pants peeing all over the country. And what yummy noodles and unrecognizable veggies (and proteins, if you’re into that)! But why not be proud that we, as Americans, have a wonderful tradition of intellectual freedom, critical thinking, freedom of belief, etc.? What’s wrong with liberal Americans that we can’t celebrate ourselves for a moment, without reminding ourselves what horrible people we are that we’ve engaged in Empire just like anyone else with our money and power would have (has) done?

170. Sapient, you were the one who said
     In those areas, I kind of want to continue to “live like we do” (except always working to be better), and when other people want to “live like we do” it makes me want to help.
     I don’t have any problem of you celebrating. But asserting that Chinese what to ‘live like we do’ is, at least from my experience, really taking things a step too far.
     There are a significant number of people supporting Falun Gong, yet it is not clear to me that those people are supporting some sort of generalize freedom of religion, or are pushing their own agenda. Given the rise of Oum Shirinkyo (responsible for the sarin subway attacks) and the general problems of Scientology, I automatically assume that they want the same thing as ‘we’ do.
     As far as Chinese people sending their children to the US, they also send them to New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong (but not so much to France, Italy and Germany). It doesn’t seem like they are in love with our freedoms, they see mastery of English as being essential for the future. We’ve got the conflation of the West that seems to include any country uses roman letters and now we have this narrowing of the West to be any place that speaks English. As I said, celebrating is no problem, but if you think that Chinese parents are sending their kids to US schools because they want them to soak up our freedoms, I think you are fooling yourself.

171. Sorry, that was comment fail there.
     2nd para
     I DON’T automatically assume that they want the same thing as ‘we’ do.

172. Rush Limbaugh embraced the Lord’s Resistance Army? I didn’t know that. Not that there is anything surprising about an ideologue embracing a group of killers, but what’s the ideological motivation here?

     Obama is persecuting Christians who are fighting Muslims.
     You can’t make this sh*te up. Limbaugh Defends Lord’s Resistance Army.

173. What’s wrong with liberal Americans that we can’t celebrate ourselves for a moment, without reminding ourselves what horrible people we are that we’ve engaged in Empire just like anyone else with our money and power would have (has) done?

     What do you mean “we,” white man?
     If you have this problem, feel free to self-criticize. If you want to criticize others, go ahead.
     But you don’t speak for me, nor for “liberal Americans.” You speak solely for yourself.

174. Limbaugh Defends Lord’s Resistance Army.
     Perhaps someone could arrange an introduction.

175. “What’s wrong with liberal Americans that we can’t celebrate ourselves for a moment, without reminding ourselves what horrible people we are that we’ve engaged in Empire just like anyone else with our money and power would have (has) done?”
     To quote Muhammad Ali–Me? Whee!

176. The number inspired me to count my collection. I have 10 make-up items (including specialist brushes). I’ll acknowledge some laziness here. I like to wear make-up every day, but I’m not a morning person, and if I can avoid an a.m. decision, I will. I’ll also admit to wearing the same products daily, no matter what the occasion (lighter for work, and heavier to attend a party or event).

Comments are closed.